1998 PLP 103 (CLC)

TARIQ PERVEZ, J. ‑‑‑Petitioners are residing within the Cantonment Board limits of Abbottabad. They have assailed, in this petition, the imposition of "Development Charges" by respondent No.l. The "charge" is levied on different rates, on different plots on the basis of their nature and use. The amount of charge is higher on commercial while, that on residential it is less.

2. The petition, as drafted, tends to bring the case, within the ambit of Articles 4, 8, 23, 24 and 25 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, inter alia, on the ground, that all citizens shall be treated in, accordance with law, they are entitled to equal treatment and, different charges being imposed on civilian, residing within the territorial limits of Cantonment area are being discriminated viz. other retired army personnels and alike. It is also contended, that, imposition of "development charge" is in fact a Tax, and no Tax can be imposed, except with the prior sanction and approval of the Federal Government. Next, it was submitted, that, even if the 'development charge' was leviable, and within the competence of respondent No.1, the amount thus collected is not properly used by providing better civic condition to the tax payees. It was contended that the respondents are legally bound to provide facilities to the residents by constructing schools, hospitals and other such‑like required facilities, including good roads, proper sewerage, drainage etc. Many other grievances have been highlighted in the averment of the petition which are not relevant for adjudication by this Court.

3. The respondents have contested all the contentions of the petitioner and they filed their written statement, wherein they have denied all such allegations as raised in the petition. With the written statement a detail of development works and programme has been annexed.

4. With regard to powers of the Cantonment Board, in imposing the "development charges", it was argued, that the charge was first levied in the year 1966 by the competent authority, and has been charged from them in accordance with law and rules framed thereunder.

5. This petition was admitted on a point of law, which does not appear in the grounds of petition, which was to the effect, that the area on which the "development charge" is imposed has not been notified under section 3 of Cantonments Act. This point was not agitated, nor raised at the time of argument before us. Section 60 of Cantonments Act, 1924, which is reproduced below empowers the Board to impose any Tax:‑‑ "

60. General Power of Taxation.‑‑(1) The Board may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, impose in any cantonment any tax which, under any cantonment for the time being in force, may be imposed in any municipality in the province wherein such cantonment is situated.

(2) Any tax imposed under this section shall take effect from the date of its notification in the official Gazette." Section 61 of Act (ibid) provide for the procedure to be adopted, and is coached in the following words:‑‑ "

61. Framing of preliminary proposals.‑‑When a resolution has been passed by the Board proposing to impose a tax under section 60, the Board shall in the manner prescribed in section 255 publish a notice specifying:‑‑ (a) the tax which it is proposed to impose; (b) the persons or classes of persons to be made liable and the description of the property or other taxable thing or circumstance in respect of which they are to be made liable; and (c) the rate at which the tax is to be levied. Learned counsel for the Cantonment Board had raised some preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition. He submitted that "Development charges" were initially imposed in the year 1966, and, later notified and rate increased through different Notifications namely: Notification No.404/71 dated 19‑2‑1971. Notification No. SRO 546(1) 76 dated 7‑6‑1976. Notification No. SRO 281(1) 83 dated 21‑3‑1987. Notification No. SRO 648(1) 84 dated 22‑7‑1984. His contention was, that the petition being filed, in the year 1993, is hit by laches, and is to be dismissed on this ground alone. He also contended, that, the petitioners of their own admission have been paying "Development charges" and hale acquiescence to it, hence, are estopped by their conduct to raise any objection at a belated stage. He, further submitted, that all the required legal procedure was followed at the time of initial imposition, and on occasion of any further alteration or modification, by giving full publicity in the 'newspaper' and by asking objection from the residents of Cantonment Board, with regard to imposition of Tax. He submitted, that, there is not a single objection received by the respondent. He lastly submitted that no specific order has been impugned in the petition, and, that the prayer made therein is also vague, hence no relief be given to the petitioners.

6. We have carefully gone through the record, as made available to us by both the parties and have heard the arguments.

7. It is undisputed that, it is within the power and scope of Board to impose tax by virtue of section 60 of Act (ibid). There is no evidence that, the petitioners have ever raised any objection, to the contrary, they have appended two receipts with the petition showing the deposit of "Development Charges".

8. Perusal of notification referred to above show, same to have been, with the prior approval of the Federal Government (photo copies have been placed on file).

9. In view of the facts stated above, we see no merits in the petition, and while placing reliance on Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Province of Punjab and others (PLD 1975 SC 37) we are of the view that no legal exception can be taken to the imposition of "Development charges" and as such there is no force in this petition, which is accordingly' dismissed. The petitioners are directed to pay cost to the respondent No. l A.A./2190/P Petition dismissed.