P L D 1996 Karachi 400 (PLP)

By this petition the petitioner who claims to be General Secretary‑of Tonga Union, Sukkur, calls into question the decision of the respondent Nos. I and 2 to remove the tonga stand situated at the Clock Tower, Sukkur. Mr. Nizainuddin Baloch learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and other tonga owners were enjoying the facility of parking tonga at the Clock Tower Tonga Stand since long but recently the respondents No. 1 and 2 acting illegally and without lawful authority have removed the Tonga stand from there and have constructed shops at the site. He contends that in view of the supersession of the Sukkur Municipal Corporation all its funds and properties including the tonga stand, by virtue of section 58(2)(c) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, now vest with the Government and therefore respondents Nos.1 and 2 had no authority to remove the tonga stand without the permission of the Government. According to the comments filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, permission for tonga stand at the Clock Tower was granted in 1973 when the area was not congested, there was not much traffic and tonga used to be the main means of conveyance; but, now with the over crowding and heavy traffic the tonga stand had become. a source of inconvenience to the people, an obstacle in the way of improvement of the area and' a major traffic problem; it is stated that the number of tongas have also substantially declined from 515 in 1983 to 195 in 1994 and there are already two other tonga stands available 'in the vicinity. Therefore, it is argued by the learned Additional Advocate‑General and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that it was for the benefit of the public and with a view to bring about improvement of, the area that the tonga 'stand was removed. They deny, the applicability of section 58 of the Ordinance to the case as the Corporation had not been superseded under that section but was dissolved ‑under section 16 of the Ordinance. It is obvious from the Notification dated 5‑10‑1992, that the Sukkur Munidipal Corporation was not supersede ' d under section 58 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, but, had been dissolved by the Government in exercise of powers under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 16 of that Ordinance. Under section 16 there being no provision similar to that of clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 58 the contention that the funds and properties of the Corporation now vested with the Government has no force. Petitioner's counsel has not been able to' point out any provision putting restraint on the removal of the ton a stand from that site or entitling the petitioner to park his tonga thereat. By reason of the above legal position and without going into the factual controversy we are of the view that the petition is not maintainable and is therefore dismissed in limine. The petitioner may, however, persue any other remedy if available to him.

2. With the dismissal of the petition this application has become infructuous and is dismissed and ad interim order, if any, in operation is vacated. H.B.T./R‑12/K.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.