Infra-court appeal

2013 PLD 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 60, 83 & 99-ASpecific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3Suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of money-Infra-court AppealImport and use of curde oil within limits of Cantonment BoardOctroi charges, recovery ofLegality

Plaintiff was contractor of Cantonment Board and collected octroi on articles imported for use, consumption or sale within the limits of Cantonment Board-concerned

Defendant-company was oil refinery and denied import of crude oil from abroad and refused to pay octori on the ground that oil was supplied through underground pipelines

Validity

Octroi tax was not like toll tax so as to be imposed at entry of road or bridge but octroi tax was liable not merely on import or entry of goods in octroi limits but also on its sale, consumption or use within such limits

Mere import of crude oil was not of any significance so as to attract levy of octroi

Entry of crude oil within octroi limits was admitted, therefore, it would be immaterial if the same was brought through underground pipelines or by road etc.

Defendant availed remedy provided under S.99-A of Cantonments Act, 1924, but without success due to retrospection of notification in question, which was since issued in favour of defendant under the . provisions of same statute, hence its applicability could not be denied by defendant

Octroi duty imposed on import, use etc. of crude/mineral oil, mentioned in duly approved octroi schedule issued under notification dated 10-9-1976, with previous sanction of Federal Government and also published in official gazette in compliance of S.60 and other sections of Cantonments Act, 1924, could not be termed to be ultra vires of the Constitution in any way

Division Bench of High Court directed defendant to pay octroi duty on import and use of crude oil in its refinery within octroi limits of Cantonment Board to plaintiff for period of his octroi

Division Bench of High Court reversed findings of Judge in Chambers of High Court on material issues

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2012 PLD 493 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 19Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3-Infra-court appealWafagi MohtasibDelegation of powerScopeDispute was with regard to passing of orders by consultants especially when office of Wafaqi Mohtasib was vacantValidity

Delegatee under Art.19 of Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, had no independent right to do any act on behalf of Wafaqi Mohtasib

Authorized/delegate could investigate and probe into complaint but he/she had to submit his recommendations to Wafaqi Mohtasib for appropriate orders

Wafaqi Mohtasib was the only person under Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, who could pass recommendations and consultants/ authorized officer could only investigate and probe the matter and to submit his report or recommendations to Wafaqi Mohtasib, delegate thus had no independent powers to issue any recommendations

Reason for not delegating powers to consultants/authorized officers to recommend directly, as Wafaqi Mohtasib was under oath under Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, whereas consultant was only the appointee of Wafaqi Mohtasib and was not under oath

Oath of Ombudsman read with Art.19 of Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, showed that Wafaqi Mohtasib had no authority to delegate his. powers to pass .any final recommendation, hence if the Principal (Ombudsman) was unable to delegate his powers, his agent could not claim that he had the powers to act as Ombudsman-Judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court was set aside to the extent of initiating of inquiry against ' consultants who had passed recommendations in absence of Wafaqi Mohtasib

Intra-court appeal was allowed accordingly.