1993 PLP 2066 (MLD)

The facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition are that the petitioners were given separate contracts by respondent No.4 for the collection of octroi and for recovery of import tax on goods and animals and also on the transfer of immovable property for the period from 1-7-1992 to 30-6-1993. Respondent No.4, Municipal Corporation, Multan vide its resolution No.4 dated 7-12-1992 increased the rate of these taxes and octroi and accordingly revised Schedule was notified and published in the Punjab Gazette on 9-12-1992. Copies of the Notification have been placed on record. The petitioners in pursuance of the above said resolution were directed by respondent No.4 to recover the taxes in question and octroi at the increased rates with effect from 10-12-1992 and as a consequence thereof they deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000 with respondent No.A Subsequently, as stated, on the direction of the Chief Minister of Punjab, the Chief Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Multan issued an order for the recovery of the taxes and octroi on the basis of previously notified Schedule. The petitioners challenged the order of Taxation Officer through W.P. No.349 of 1993 at Principal Seat of this Court, which was disposed of with the direction to respondent No.l to decide the matter after hearing the parties. However, one Khawaja Muhammad Suleman filed I.C.A. No.5/1993 against the order in the writ petition passed by the learned Single Bench which was disposed of by a learned Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 30-1-1993 with the observation that the parties shall be entitled to raise all the points available to them before the Secretary, Local Government, Punjab. However, it was directed that if Secretary finds that the increase in the taxes was unauthorised and against public interest and policy, the amount collected from the citizens in this behalf in excess to the actual amount shall be claimable from the respondent No.4 who shall be bound to refund the same. The contractor was also made liable to make refund of the amount collected by him in this behalf. Respondent No.1 vide his order dated 2-2-1993 after hearing the all concerned quashed Resolution No.4 passed by Municipal Corporation, Multan, in exercise of power under section 156(x) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979.

2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 2-2-1993 passed by respondent No.1 raising the following contentions. (i) That respondent No.1 in exercise of his jurisdiction under section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1.979 can only quash the proceedings and not the resolution. Once, the resolution is finalized by the local council, the Government is ceased to have passed order of either nature qua the same. The resolution in question having taken effect creating rights and liabilities in favour of the petitioners could not be quashed. (ii) That the taxes/octroi duty was not levied on the direction of the Government as provided under section 137 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance and therefore, increase or decrease in the duty by virtue of section 139 of the ibid Ordinance does not call interference of the Provincial Government in the matter. The Provincial Government can only exercise its power with regard to the taxes imposed only on its direction and not otherwise. (iii) That respondent No.4 entered into an agreement by way of resolution No.4 with the petitioner by virtue of statutory rules on the subject and quashment of resolution amounts to violation of rules therefore, the impugned order has caused a serious prejudice to the petitioners in the nature of financial loss. Therefore, they being aggrieved and having the locus standi can competently file this petition. (iv) That the agreement between the petitioners and respondent No.4 was outcome of the statutory rules and the violation of the agreement is not only a violation of contract itself but also the rules on the subject and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. While placing reliance on 1992 CLC 1519, PLD 1991 Kar. 372 and 1990 MLD 2191 he argued that in spite of the fact that matter involves contractual liability, the remedy of writ petition is not barred.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and learned Addl. A.-G. submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petition for want of challenging the quashment of resolution in question by respondent No.4 The petitioner is still enjoying the status of an agent of respondent No.4 for the purpose of original contract. The increase in the taxes in question was made to raise the finances of respondent No.4 for its benefit and therefore no loss or damage is caused to the petitioners through the quashment of resolution in question.

4. The preliminary question involved in the case for determination is the locus standi of the petitioners to question the validity of the impugned order and the maintainability of the writ petition. The petitioners entered into an agreement with Municipal Corporation, Multan respondent No.4 for the purpose of collection/recovery of the taxes/octroi duty as per schedule and the agreement between the parties. The petitioners in a way are performing the duty of an agent of the corporation for the purpose of collection of revenue of particular items. The resolution in question was passed by respondent 4 with the intent and purpose to increase its income and not for the benefit of the petitioners who as per agreement had to get their share as collecting agent/agency. The resolution passed by respondent No.4 was no doubt given effect and implemented as such but the Provincial Government having the jurisdiction and authority over the matter coming to the conclusion that the increase in the tax/octroi duty is an extra burden which being against the public policy and interest, while exercising power under section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 quashed the resolution. The resolution was passed by respondent No.4 for the purpose of increasing its finances as Local Government and petitioners were authorised to collect the same on its behalf, therefore, not the petitioners but respondent No.4 was in fact the aggrieved party who has not questioned the validity of the order passed by respondent No.1 rather respondent No.4 has accepted the quashment of resolution and defended the order in question before this Court. The petitioners, therefore, cannot bind either the Provincial Government or respondent No.4 to give effect to the resolution in question and compel the taxpayer to pay the tax at the increased rate for their financial benefit. The imposition of tax and its increase and decrease of the nature by respondent No.4 is purely a matter between the Provincial Government, the Local Government and the public. The petitioners who were deputed to collect the tax in question have no locus standi to dictate their terms to the Municipal Corporation or to Provincial Government or to the public in the matter and also to question the order of quashment of the resolution. At the most if they feel that they have a valid agreement with the Corporation and the violation of the same has caused them damages, they can avail their remedy against the Corporation for recovery of loss or damage if any but have no right to question the impugned order to be set aside. The petitioners having no right either to ask respondent No.4 to pass a resolution or to question the authority of respondent No.1 to quash the saint have no locus standi to file this petition. The agreement between the petitioners and respondent No.4 creates a contractual liability and not violation of any statutory rule or provision of law on the subject.

5. Apparently the decrease or increase in the rate of tax does not materially effect the petitioners and no actual loss or damage seems to have been caused to them. Anyhow, if as per terms of the agreement the petitioners suffered some loss because of the act of respondent No.4, they can seek their alternate remedy provided under the law for recovery of damages. This petition challenging validity of the impugned order to have been passed illegally with the prayer to declare the Resolution No.4 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Multan to be effective for all purposes, being against the public interest and peace is not maintainable.

6. Be that as it may the order of the quashment of resolution passed by respondent No. 1 suffers from no legal infirmity to be interfered with

7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./I-80/L????? Petition dismissed