2003 PLP 61 (YLR)

Muhammad Aslam Khan Dukhar for Respondent No.

5. Mian Anwar‑ul‑Haq for Respondents Nos.6 and

7. Date of hearing: 24th September, 2002. The instant petition, as also Writ Petitions Nos.2822 of 2002, 2337 of 2002, 2447 of 2002 and 2543 of 2002, are being disposed of together, as these involve common questions of law and facts.

2. In nutshell, the dispute between the parties is about holding of two cattle markets, one in Tehsil Rahimyar Khan and the second in Tehsil Sadiqabad.

3. Brief facts of the case are that previously, cattle market titled Chowk Bahadar Shah, was being held by District Council Rahimyar Khan. On the promulgation of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001) and the creation/establishment of new Tehsil Councils, the aforesaid cattle market has been succeeded by Tehsil Rahimyar Khan; this cattle market had been auctioned by the Tehsil Rahimyar Khan, to the Contractor, which is the petitioner in the other case.

4. Tehsil Sadiqabad, had also started holding the cattle market at Chowk Bahadarpur, which has been auctioned to the Contractor, who is writ petitioner in one of the petitions. The grievance of the parties inter se is that the Tehsil Sadiqabad, cannot hold a cattle market on the same day i.e. the date on which, the Zila Council Rahimyar Khan, has been holding the market since long and that it should be beyond the distance of five miles.

5. During the course of hearing, counsel for the parties, have conceded that both the Tehsil Councils, have a right to establish and hold their own cattle markets within their jurisdiction, but controversy as mentioned above is about the day and the distance. h is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners (Tehsil Rahimyar Khan) and its contractor that according to the instructions of the Government in force under Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which have been duly saved under Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001); neither two markets can be held same day, nor within the distance mentioned above. It is stated that as the market of the petitioners is earlier in time, therefore, the respondents be directed to abide by the said instructions.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and learned Advocate‑General, Punjab, Secretary of the Local Government, is also present. Learned Advocate‑General and the Secretary has referred to the provisions of section 140 of the Ordinance, 2001 ibid and states that in order to seek resolution of the intra‑District dispute, a Mushavirat Committee, has been constituted under the law and therefore, parties be directed to approach Mushavirat Committee for settling their controversy.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with the above, states that this provision provides the resolution of dispute in between the two district councils and not with regard to the Tehsils of the same district.

8. I am afraid, such narrow interpretation of section 140 cannot be made. According to subsection 4(c) to section 140, it is clear and beyond any doubt that in true spirit of the abovesaid provision, the dispute between the Local Government of the same District, should be resolved through Mushavirat Committee, constituted under the law, thus as the petitioners have adequate remedy under the provisions mentioned above, therefore, without resorting to such remedy, present writ petitions are not maintainable. It may also be mentioned that the respondents in the two writ petitions, filed by Tehsil Council, Rahimyar Khan and its Contractor, have also raised factual dispute that cattle market titled Chowk Bahadar Pur was never earlier conducted at Kot Kamoo Shah, which area falls within the jurisdiction of Tehsil Rahimyar Khan, rather it was being held at Chowk Bahadar Pur, which is a part of Tehsil Sadiqabad, therefore, to say that the cattle market of the petitioners is earlier in time, is seriously controverted. This factual dispute between the parties, cannot also be resolved in the Constitutional jurisdiction, because it may require evidence. On both the above counts, I do not find these to be appropriate cases for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction, therefore, I direct the parties to approach the Mushavirat Committee and to seek resolution of the dispute by the Committee. In the light of above, all these petitions stand disposed of. S.A.K./M‑1492/L Order accordingly.