1996SCMR1015 (PLP)
M/s. FATIMA ENTERPRISES LTD. and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996SCMR1015 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | M/s. FATIMA ENTERPRISES LTD. and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR1015 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR1015 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR1015 (PLP) (M/s. FATIMA ENTERPRISES LTD. and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Umar Ata Bandial, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mian Abdul Sattar Najam, Advocate‑General Punjab and Faiz Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umar Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 1995.
- Umar Ata Bandial, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Mian Abdul Sattar Najam, Advocate-General Punjab and Faiz Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umar Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.3.
- 3. The above petitions had come up for hearing before this Court on 11-1-1995 when we ordered for the issuance of notice to the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, and to respondents Nos. l and 3.
- 4. In response to the above notice, Mian Abdul Sattar Najam, learned Advocate-General Punjab, and Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No.3 have appeared, Mr. Umar Ata Bandial, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in identical other writ petitions, the Lahore High Court has granted stay order on furnishing of bank guarantee. He has further submitted that there is a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court rendered in the case of M/s. Chaudhri Wire Rope Industries (Private) Limited v. Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department etc. (NLR 1994 Civil 569), wherein the contentions raised by the petitioners have been accepted, which judgment was not available when the present petitioners' stay applications were disposed of. Ch Hamid-ud-Din, learned counsel for respondent No.3, has pointed out that M/s. Mahmood Textile Mills Limited, petitioner in C.P No. 1134/L of 1993, has filed a fresh writ petition in the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench and has obtained a stay order and, therefore, the present petition for-leave cannot be prosecuted.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the orders dated 22‑5‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Multan Bench, passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 1025/93, 1023/93 and 1024/93 respectively). , ‑‑‑‑O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 6(5)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Extension of Municipal Committee limits resulting in inclusion of petitioner (mills) within limits of Municipal Committee and thereby rendering them liable to pay property tax on factories and to pay octroi on goods‑‑High Court while admitting petitioner's Constitutional petition for regular hearing did not grant him interim relief against realizing any property tax and octroi‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Supreme Court while declining leave to appeal against refusal to grant interim order by High Court observed that petitioner would have option to file fresh application for grant of interim relief in the pending Constitutional petition and that respondent Municipal Committee could raise pleas available to it under the law and High Court would decide such matters in accordance with law. M/s. Chaudhri Wire Rope Industries (Private) Limited v. Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department and others NLR 1994 Civil 569 and M/s. Mahmood Textile Mills, Limited in C.P. No. 1134/L of 1993 ref.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
By this common order we intend to dispose of the above three petitions which are directed against interlocutory orders of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in writ petitions filed by the petitioners, not granting any interim injunction restraining respondent No.3 i.e. Municipal Committee, Muzaffargarh, and the contractor from realizing any property tax and/or octroi.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above petitions are that the Commissioner, D.G. Khan, respondent No.2, in exercise of delegated powers under section 6(5) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, by a notification published in the official Gazette on 23-9-1992, extended the limits of the Municipal Committee, Muzaffargarh, which resulted in the inclusion of the petitioners' mills within the limits of the above Municipal Committee and thereby rendering them liable to pay property tax on the factories and to pay octroi on the goods. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid notification on various Constitutional/legal grounds. The High Court found the above writ petitions fit for regular hearing and, therefore, admitted the same not granted any interim injunction on the petitioners' stay applications. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
3. The above petitions had come up for hearing before this Court on 11-1-1995 when we ordered for the issuance of notice to the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, and to respondents Nos. l and 3.
4. In response to the above notice, Mian Abdul Sattar Najam, learned Advocate-General Punjab, and Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No.3 have appeared, Mr. Umar Ata Bandial, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in identical other writ petitions, the Lahore High Court has granted stay order on furnishing of bank guarantee. He has further submitted that there is a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court rendered in the case of M/s. Chaudhri Wire Rope Industries (Private) Limited v. Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department etc. (NLR 1994 Civil 569), wherein the contentions raised by the petitioners have been accepted, which judgment was not available when the present petitioners' stay applications were disposed of. Ch Hamid-ud-Din, learned counsel for respondent No.3, has pointed out that M/s. Mahmood Textile Mills Limited, petitioner in C.P No. 1134/L of 1993, has filed a fresh writ petition in the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench and has obtained a stay order and, therefore, the present petition for-leave cannot be prosecuted.
5. We are not going to decide any controversial issue, since we intend to decline leave in the above petitions with the observation that it will be open to the petitioners to file fresh stay applications before the Lahore High Court, which will be disposed of in accordance with law, it will be open to respondent No.3, Municipal Committee, to raise the above plea before the High Court. Leave is refused with the above observation. A.A/F-346/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.