1994 PLP 1610 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss: 139, 153, 156 & 173‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199=‑‑Levy of transfer fee‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Constitutional petition ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑ Constitutional petition challenging order levying transfer fee on property, passed by Appellate Authority, without first availing adequate and efficacious alternate remedy available under Ss. 139, 153; 156 & 173 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. Raja Muhammad Ramzan and 21 others v. Uion Council Bajnial and other 1994 SCMR 1484 ref. Hafiz Saeed Ahmad Sheikh for Petitioner. Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, AssttA.‑G. (on Court's Call). Through this Constitutional Petition Jahangir Hussain petitioner, who is a Contractor of respondent No. 2, has challenged the order dated 20‑1‑1993 passed by Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the extent of levy of "transfer fee" has been accepted and it has been held that the transfer fee shall be levied on the basis of price mentioned in the relevant deed itself and not on the basis of formula laid down by the Corporation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the petitioner is patently without jurisdiction; that before decision of the appeal the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of being heard; that while taking the view to the effect that the transfer fee in accord with the formula in question in appeal, cannot be charged from the appellant, learned Commissioner has failed to take into consideration the relevant statutory provisions on the subject, and therefore, the same is illegal and without a lawful authority. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious alternate 'remedy of filing of a petition/representation before Government of the Punjab under the provisions of section 139, 153, 156 and 173 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and can also file a civil suit for redress of his grievance, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. In reply to the argument of the learned Law Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the order is patently without jurisdiction, the writ petition is competent. 3. 1 have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. There is no denying of the fact that as per provisions of sections 139, 153, 156 and 173 the petitioner has a remedy before the Government for the redress of his grievance, which cannot be said to be inadequate and‑inefficacious. Similarly, the petitioner can also file a civil suit for redress of his grievances, hence, in view of the alternate efficacious remedies available to the petitioner, as held in case of Raja A Muhammad Ramzan and 21 others v. Union Council, Bajnial and another (CPSLAs. Nos. 172 and 173/92 (decided on 19‑5‑1992) reported as previous judgment), the writ petition is not maintainable and hence, is dismissed in limine. H.B.T/J‑71/L. Petition dismissed.