1999 PLP 430 (CLC)

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Section 6 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, under which the notifications, dated 18‑5‑1998 were issued reads as under:‑‑

"

6. Divisions to be divided into Districts and Districts into Sub-Divisions etc.‑‑‑ (1) Each Division shall be divided into such Districts and each District may be divided into such Sub‑Division or Tehsils (which also include Talukas), as Government may, by notification, direct. (2) Government may, by notification, vary the number and limit of Divisions, Districts, Sub‑Divisions of Tehsils in the Province." The other notification, dated 28‑5‑1998 was issued under subsection (5) of section 6 and section 7 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which portions are reproduced as under:‑‑

"(5) Government may, by notification, extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits of a local council or declare that any local council shall cease to be a local council with the following consequences and such other consequences as may be enumerated in the declaration‑‑‑ (a) in cases where the local area comprising a local council ceases to be a local council‑‑ (i) if the control of the local area is placed under any other local authority, the balance of the local council fund and other property vesting in the local council shall vest in such local authority and the liabilities of the local council shall stand transferred to such local authority; and (ii) if the control of the local area is not placed under any other local authority, the balance of the local council fund and other property vesting in the local council shall vest in Government and the liabilities of the local council shall stand transferred to the Government; (b) in cases where any local area forming part of a local council ceases to be a part of that local council‑‑ (i) if the control of that part of the local area is placed under some other local authority, such portion of the local council fund and other property vesting in the local council and such portion of the liabilities of the local council, as the Government may, by general or special order, direct shall be transferred to that other local authority; and (ii) if the control of that part of local area is not placed under some other local authority, such portion of the local council fund and other property vesting in the local council shall vest in Government and such portion of the liabilities of the local council shall be transferred to the Government as the Government may, by general or special order, direct.

7. Division amalgamation and reconstitution of local council.‑‑ (1) Government may, by notification, divide a local council into two or more local councils or amalgamate two or more local councils into one local council and may specify in the notification the consequences which shall ensue upon the publication of such notification. (2) When as a result of such division or amalgamation any new local council is constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance or in the manner specified in the notification, the directly elected Muslim members of any local council so divided or amalgamated shall become the members of such local council or local councils as Government may, by notification, specify as if such members had been elected to that local council."

9. From the perusal of section 6 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, it would appear that primarily it is for the Government to vary the limits of a District or a Sub‑Division of Tehsils in the Province without there being any particular conditions or limitations on the exercise of its powers. Once the administrative changes in the territorial limits of a District or a Sub‑Division are brought about, the consequential steps as contemplated by subsection (5) of section 6 and section 7 of the Ordinance are, necessarily, to be taken in order to avoid any anomalous situation. If the notification under section 6 of the Act of 1967 is held to be valid, the other notifications under subsection (5) of section 6 and section 7 of 1979, Ordinance may not be seriously objected to, of course, subject to certain safeguards and other consequences which are to follow. The petitioners failed to show by placing any relevant material that action on the part of the Provincial Government in issuance of the impugned notification was tainted with mala fides or otherwise suffering from any legal infirmity. The matter of constituting or reconstituting Divisions, Districts or Sub‑Divisions is essentially an administrative matter to which the presumption of regularity is attached. The relevant provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, or the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, do not contemplate the ascertainment of the wishes or the views of the inhabitants of such areas by undertaking an exercise like that of referendum or franchise. Ordinarily, such like policy decisions taken by the Government are not open to exception unless the same are shown to be unreasonable, unfair or otherwise mala fide or without jurisdiction. No reasons were required by law to be recorded in the issuance of the impugned notifications. A learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court was right in dismissing the earlier Writ Petition No.8096 of 1993 by taking the view that this Court while exercising the Constitutional jurisdiction was, ordinarily, not to sit in judgment over the decision of the Government regarding the divisions of the Districts into various Tehsils keeping in view the administrative convenience.

10. A similar question was examined by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of The Chittananjan Cotton Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner, Narayanganj Municipality and another PLD. 1958 SC (Pak.)

430. In the precedent case, certain areas were added to the limits of Narayangang Municipality by the order of Government which was challenged. It was observed that a presumption of regularity of the Government actions was attached and the burden of showing otherwise was on the person who alleged, contrary. While interpreting the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, it was held that the law did not lay down a procedure for the consideration of the objections and did not give the objector the right to be heard in person or to substantiate by evidence his objections. There was, therefore, no lis in the sense in which the existence of a lis or an issue made the proceedings judicial or quasi judicial and the final order to be made by the Government remained essentially en administrative order without the proceedings of a quasi judicial in nature.

11. In the case of Messrs Amin 'Jute Mills Ltd. Chittagond v. The Chittagong Municipality and others PLD 1970 Dacca 338, a Division Bench of the erstwhile East Pakistan High Court took the view that the Government had full authority to demarcate or redemarcate the areas of the urban or the rural municipalities. An area of one council could be excluded and included into an area of another council. This judgment was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as reported in 1969 SCMR

320. Both the aforesaid judgments were followed by this Court in the case of Sunshine Cotton Mills Ltd., Sheikhupura v. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Sheikhupura and 3 others PLD 1978 Lah. 263.

12. A Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Surakant Walchand Shah and others v. Shahnawaz Hanifsaheb Bokhare and others AIR 1986 Bom. 5 took the view that once an additional areas were included in the District by a Provincial Government necessary consequences were to follow automatically. Somewhat similar observations were made in the case of Aftab Hussain (supra).

13. We should not be understood as laying down as a rule of them as if a notification issued by the Provincial Government under section 6 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and under subsection (5) of section 6 and section 7 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, are immune from being called in question. The power of judicial review is available in appropriate cases of infraction of law or unfairness, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or mala fides on the part of the Government. In the facts and circumstances of the present cases no exception can be taken to the validity of the impugned notifications. The areas excluded from District Jhelum and re-included in District Gujrat had throughout remained a part of District Gujrat since times immemorial. It was considered to be in the public interest to keep the‑areas of Sarai Alamgir Sub- Division as a part of District Gujrat.

14. Since we are deciding the writ petitions on their merits, the questions of locus standi of petitioners and the non‑impleadment of Zila Councils, as necessary parties are left to be examined in some other proper case.

15. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions which are dismissed in limine. H.B.T./G‑105/L Petitions dismissed