1989 PLP 3543 (MLD)

(e) the loss of income likely to be caused by the abolition or suspension of the tax or reduction in the rate of the tax and the manner in which this short fall is income as proposed to be made up, (f) justification of the taxation proposal, and (g) any other particulars considered necessary of the information of the public. (ii) shall accompany a taxation programme specifying:- (a) the date which shall not be earlier than fifteen days from the publication of the notice, by which objections' or suggestions may be made by the inhabitants; (b) the date or dates fixed for the hearing of objections and suggestion received under this rule. (c) the date by which the final taxation proposal shall be sent to Government for sanction. . 5. (1) All objections and suggestions received under rule 4, shall be entered in a register maintained for the purpose. (2) The Finance Committee of the council shall hear and examine the objections and suggestions under the chairmanship or Mayor or Chairman, of the Council as the case may be. (3) On the date or dates fixed for the hearing of objections and suggestions, the committee shall hear the same in public and shall afford all possible facilities to the persons making them to present their case. (4) The committee shall as early as possible after close of the hearing of objections and suggestions, draw up and furnish detailed report to the Council: (5) The report to the sub-rule (4) shall specify:- (a) the salient features of the taxation proposal; (b) the number and nature of objections and suggestions received within the specified period; (c) the manner in which the objections and suggestions were heard; (d) the findings of the committee in respect of each objection and suggestion heard by it; (e) the recommendation of the sub-committee with regard to the taxation proposal indicating whether the recommendations are, as nearly as possible m accordance with the model tax schedule, if any framed by Government under section 6; and (f) financial implications involved in such recommendations. 6. (1) The Mayor or Chairman, as the case may be, shall present the report to the special meeting of the council, convened for consideration of the taxation proposal. (2) The council shall, consider the report and for the reasons incorporated in its resolutions: (a) approve it with or without modifications, or (b) drop the taxation proposal, (c) if the council approves the taxation proposal, with or without modifications, it shall be submitted to Government alongwith a copy each of the report of the committee and the resolution approving it:' We had called for parawise comments from the respondents in the matter which were filed by them alongwith the following documents. (i) Minutes of the meeting of 7-4-1988, showing that resolution was passed to revise the Octroi schedule and fixing the programme for inviting objections, their hearing and submission of report by Finance committee. (ii) Public Notice published in newspaper. (iii) The Schedule of Octroi. (iv) Report of the Committee dated 25-5-1988. (v) Some letters and receipts. Subsequently an affidavit of the Chairman of respondent Union Council was also filed who alongwith his affidavit produced the Minutes of the special meeting of respondent council held on 26-5-1988, "wherein the resolution approving the report of the Finance Committee was passed. From the above documents, Mr. K.B. Bhutto, Advocate appearing for the respondent Union Council has argued that all the mandatory requirements of the rules have been complied with inasmuch as by a resolution in the meeting of 7-4-1988, a proposal was made, objections were invited, the petitioner admittedly has vide their letter dated 12-5-1988 intimated their objections, the Finance Committee considered and finalized the proposal in their meeting held on 22-5-1988 which was placed in the special meeting of respondent Council on 26-5-1988 and having approved the same was published in the Sind Government Gazette. He has further argued that the case of Kotri Association of Trade and Industry v. Government of Sind and another would be applicable only if there was violation of above-said legal provisions as there is no such violation in the present case, the above said Division Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court will not be helpful to the petitioner. We are in agreement with the contention of Mr. K.B. Bhutto, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Ahsan Zaheer Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the abovesaid resolution shows that the proposal was only to enhance the octroi on sugar-cane for the realization of an amount of Rs. 6,00,000, whereas, the notification published in the Gazette shows that the octroi on other articles has also been enhanced. We are afraid, we cannot agree with the learned counsel, as the documents placed on record show the other proposal of enhancement also. Mr. Ahsan Zaheer Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also relied on the case of Wali Muhammad and another v. Mst. Hamida Bai 1983 SCMR

191. This was a case dealing with the requirements of notice under section 14 (1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. We do not find any nexus of said case with the present case. Lastly, Mr. Ahsan Zaheer Rizvi, has argued that he was not given an opportunity of being heard on his objections. He has placed his letter dated 12-5-1988 on the record, which shows that the petitioner had raised objections of general nature only which were duly considered by the Finance Committee of respondent Council in their report of 22-5-1988. Mr. Rizvi also raised the objections that the respondent Council should have allowed the time to the petitioner upto 25-5-1988 to hear his objections. We cannot agree to this contention of the learned counsel. The petitioner had raised only objections of general nature and there is no such law, whereby, the respondent Council could be said to have been bound to grant further time. For the above reason, we do not find any substance in the present petition, which is dismissed in limine. The above are the reasons for the short order passed by us today. H.B.T./F-100/K Petition dismissed.