2007 PLP 1100 (CLC)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Through this Intra-Court Appeal the appellant has challenged the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 3-5-2005 whereby the constitutional petition filed by the appellant assailing the notice dated 27-1-2005 regarding joint allotment of plot in the new vegetable market, issued by the Market Committee, Gujrat was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is a licence-holder of the Market Committee, Gujrat, filed an application for allotment of a plot in the newly proposed vegetable market on the basis of one licence one plot. However, the appellant and one Muhammad Arif were allotted only one common Plot bearing No.66 on deposit of the sale price pursuant to Notice No.1217, dated 27-1-2005, issued by the Chairman, Market Committee, Gujrat. The appellant being aggrieved of allotment of one plot against two separate applications challenged the notice through a constitutional petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 3-5-2005. Hence this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order of the learned Single Judge was against law and facts and that the learned Judge misdirected himself by observing that the appellant had an alternate remedy available in terms of Rule 21 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General Rules), 1979 which provided for an appeal against an order passed by the Market Committee. It was further contended that the plot in question had been allotted by the Committee constituted by the Special Secretary Agricultural Marketing, Lahore, vide order, dated 25-11-2004 and against the order of allotment of the said committee, no right of appeal was provided. Also stated that it was a misconception that Rule 21 (ibid) applied to the case of the appellant.

4. Ch. Farooq Haider, Advocate while representing respondents Nos.5 to 12 contended that the appeal was misconceived as the order/notice impugned in the writ petition was issued by the Market Committee, Gujrat against which remedy of appeal under Rule 21 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General Rules), 1979 was available and, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge was in consonance with the law and did not warrant interference.

5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General representing respondents Nos.1 to 4 has adopted the argument advanced by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.5 to 12.

6. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have gone through the documents on the file with their able assistance.

7. At the very outset we have noticed that the appellant in the constitutional petition from which the instant appeal emanates has only challenged the notice issued by the Chairman, Market Committee, Gujrat allotting one plot to the appellant and one Asif Ali. Thus, admittedly the impugned notice was issued by the Market Committee which could have been assailed by the appellant through appeal in terms of Rule 21 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General Rules), 1979. The learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the appellant had adequate remedy available by way of an appeal against the impugned notice/order. We subscribe to the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Rule 21 (ibid) is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:- "

21. Appeals against Market Committee's decisions.

(1) An order passed by a Market Committee, other than service matter, under the Ordinance or these rules, shall be appealable to the Assistant Commissioner of the respective notified market area. (2) Except as may otherwise be provided by these rules every appeal shall be stamped with a court-fee of Rs.5. (3) Every appeal shall be presented to the Appellate Authority by the appellant, or his duly appointed agent within thirty days of the date of the order appealed against. It shall be accompanied by a copy of such order, and shall set out the grounds of attack together with a clear statement of the facts relevant thereto and the relief claimed. It shall state clearly the name and full description of the appellant, who shall sign the memorandum and verify the correctness of the fact stated therein. (4) The appeal shall be decided after notice to and after hearing the appellant, the Market Committee concerned, and the person in whose favour the order under appeal had been made, and after making such further enquiry as the Appellate Authority may consider necessary. (5) A revision against the order passed in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner referred to in sub-rule (1) shall lie to the Commissioner of the Division concerned."

8. Since the remedy of appeal is available to the appellant in terms of the aforesaid the instant appeal is also not maintainable in terms of proviso to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, which reads as under: "Provided that the appeal referred to in this subsection shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or authority against the original order." It has further been noticed that the controversy revolves around disputed questions of fact which as held by the learned Single Judge, cannot be gone into in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. We have not been able to find any illegality or legal infirmity in the orders impugned in the appeal.

9. For what has been stated above, this Intra-Court Appeal has no merit which stands dismissed. F.B./A-46/L Appeal dismissed.