VALIKA PROPERTIES LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J .‑‑The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging the order of respondent No.2 dated 15‑7‑1982. The following facts may be stated here which are relevant for disposal of this petition.

2. On 28‑2‑1979 the respondent demanded war risk insurance premium from the petitioner on the immovable properties owned by them. The insurance premium was demanded by respondent No.2 on the basis of the value of the properties which was calculated at 40 times the annual rent in accordance with explanation 4 appended to Rule 7 of the War Risk Insurance Rule 1971. The petitioner challenged the amount of premium of War Risk Insurance demanded by the respondent No.2 and the assessment order in an appeal filed under Rule 10 (2) of the War Risk Insurance Rules 1971. This appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on 15‑7‑1982. Thereafter the petitioner filed a review petition for which it is conceded that there is neither any provision in the relevant Act nor in the Rules. Be that as it may, this review petition was also rejected on 22‑12‑1980. The petitioner thereafter did not agitate the matter any further which attained finality. Not only this, but on 6‑1‑1987 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Joint Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce, Karachi, praying that the 'recovery proceedings initiated against them may be stayed until re‑assessment of the value of their properties. This was followed by another letter dated 11‑1‑1987 addressed by the petitioner to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad in which they offered to pay the assessment subject to the condition that they are allowed to pay the premium in ten monthly instalments. It was after this letter that the above petition was presented in this Court on 17‑2‑1987 challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 17‑7‑1982.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground of excessive laches and acquiescence on the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contended that there is neither any laches nor acquiescence on the part of petitioner. According to learned counsel the petitioner had a fresh cause to come to the Court in view of the decision in the case of M/s New Jubilee Insurance v. Enquiry Officer, War Risks (1985 SCMR 1317) and as such there are no laches in the case. Alternatively it is contended that after the decision of the appeal of petitioner in 1982 the amount of War RisKs Insurance Premium was never demanded by Respondent No.2 from the petitioner and, therefore, as and when such demand was made it gave a fresh cause of action to petitioner to challenge the order passed against them.

4. None of the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has any substance. There is no basis for the argument that the decision in the case of New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. gave a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 15‑7‑1982 which attained finality in law. Apart from it the decision in the case of New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. was pronounced by the Supreme Court on 13‑12‑1983 which is published in July Part of 1985. S.C.M.R., while the present petition was presented in this Court on 17‑2‑1987. There is absolutely no explanation from the petitioner for presenting the petition after about four years of the decision in the above case and at least for two and a half years of the publication of that decision in the Law Journal. In addition to it, the learned counsel for the respondent rightly pointed out that the petitioner having themselves offered to pay the amount of. assessment by their letter dated 11‑1‑1987 addressed to respondent No.2 which was long after the decision of Supreme Court in the case of New Jubilee Insurance Company there was hardly any room for the argument that the petitioners were still entitled to challenge the order dated 15‑7‑1982. The learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the case of New Khan Transport Company Ltd. v. Member Board of Revenue (1968 S C M R 1307) in which the explanation offered by the petitioner in that case for not presenting a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution promptly against the impugned action as he was waiting for the result of another case instituted by a third party was held to be insufficient.

5. We are accordingly of the view that the above petition is not only highly belated but the petitioner also acquiesced in the impugned order which cannot be allowed to be challenged now. We accordingly dismiss this petition but there will be no order as to costs.

6. H . B . T . /V‑9/ K ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.