2003 CLC 391 (PLP)

(2) B.P. Biscuit Factory v. Wealth Tax Officer 1996 SCMR 1470. He further submits that the petitioner has no alternative remedy to challenge the vires of the Notification under the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and rules framed thereunder. In support of his contention he relied upon Raja Muhammad Ramzan v. Zila Council PLD 1992 Lah. 324.

2. Learned Additional Advocate‑General submits that writ petition is not maintainable. 3. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.

4. It is admitted fact that petitioner has alternative remedy under the provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. In arriving to this Conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:‑‑ (1) Raja Mehmood's case 1994 SCMR 1484 (2) Raja Ramzan's case 1994 MLD 930 (3) ICI Pakistan's case 1993 MLD 32 (4) Kh. Abdul Waheed's case PLD 1978 Lah. 811 (5) Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC

246. The aforesaid proposition was considered by my learned brother Ihsan‑ul‑Haq, J. (as he then was) in Writ Petition No.4174 of 1998 and laid down the following principle:‑‑ "There is recent tendency to file constitutional petitions without exhausting remedies under the statute. This recent trend is dangerous. The Honourable Supreme Court clearly held in the case reported as Syed Sabir Shah and others v. Shah Muhammad Khan PLD 1995 SC 66, Collector Customs, Karachi v. New Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. and others PLD 1994 SC 363 and Riffat Askari v. The State PLD 1997 Lah. 285. " The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner qua the maintainability of the writ petition are distinguishable on facts and law and even otherwise the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court has binding effect on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution.

5. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, in the interest of justice and fair-play let a copy of the writ petition be sent to D.C.O. concerned who is directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the respondents and the petitioner either himself or send the same to the competent authority for decision who is also directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the respondents and the petitioner preferably within one month after receiving the order of this Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before the D.C.O. concerned on 15‑8‑2002 who is directed either to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the respondents and the petitioner preferably within one month till 15‑9‑2002. He is further directed to submit report to Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court within the stipulated period. Learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of the writ petition alongwith all the annexures to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate- General who is directed to send the came to D.C.O. concerned for necessary action and compliance. He is further directed to send the same to the Secretary, Local Government, Government of Punjab, Lahore and also to Chief Secretary, Punjab who are directed to formulate a policy in consultation with the competent authority and issue directions to the District Governments to act within the framework of the Constitution and Law as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC

530. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./F‑123/L Order accordingly.