MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KASUR vs MESSRS MAHBOOB ASHRAF TRANSPORT
The Supreme Court addressed three petitions challenging the validity of an enhanced toll-tax on public vehicles by the Municipal Committee, Kasur. The Committee had increased the toll-tax from Re. 1 to Rs. 2 per loaded bus in 1968, which was initially imposed in 1963 under Section 33 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960. The respondents filed a suit challenging the enhancement, alleging that neither the requisite sanction of the competent authority nor notification in the official Gazette, as prescribed by the Ordinance, had been obtained. The High Court had issued a temporary injunction restraining the Committee from recovering the additional Re. 1, conditional on the respondents furnishing security or the Committee undertaking to maintain accounts and refund the amount if the suits succeeded. The Supreme Court found that the Committee had not complied with the requirements of Sections 33 and 34 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, regarding prior government sanction and official gazette notification for the enhancement. Consequently, the enhancement was deemed illegal, and the petitions seeking to uphold its validity were dismissed.
- Does the enhancement of a toll-tax by a Municipal Committee require the previous sanction of the Government?
- Is the levy of a toll-tax required to be notified in the official Gazette?
- Can a Municipal Committee legally enhance a toll-tax without complying with statutory requirements for sanction and notification?
- What are the consequences if a Municipal Committee fails to obtain prior government sanction and official gazette notification for a toll-tax enhancement?
- Section 33, Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960
- Section 34, Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960
ORDER
1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-All these three petitions seek to uphold the lidity of enhancement of toll-tax on public vehicles by the petitioner unicipal Committee, Kasur.
2. ' It appears that under a Notification dated the 20th of August, 1963, sued under section 33 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, toll-tax at the rate of Re. 1 per loaded bus had been imposed with the quite sanction of the Government of West Pakistan. In 1968 the toll- was enhanced from Re. 1 to Rs, 2 per loaded bus.
3. ' The respondents filed a suit, Inter alia, for a declaration that the levy ND imposition of the toll-tax by the petitioner Committee at the enhanced to of Rs, 2 was illegal inasmuch as neither the requisite sanction of the competent authority had been obtained nor the order was notified in the inner prescribed under the said Ordinance. The respondent also prayed r a temporary injunction against the petitioners restraining the Municipal committee from recovering from the respondents the said toll-tax until the disposal of the suit.
4. ' The application for temporary injunction was dismissed on the 8th of ugly, 1972, and the respondents filed an appeal before the learned District judge, Lahore, but it was dismissed on the 6th of October, 1972. The respondents filed separate revision applications before the Lahore High court and they were partly accepted by a learned Single Judge of the High court and a temporary injunction was issued restraining the petitioner torn recovering from the respondents the additional amount of Re. 1 as of-tax, provided they furnished security to the satisfaction of the trial Court to pay the amount due from them in this respect if their suits ultimately ailed. The learned Judges, however, observed that this interim injunction would not be effective if the Municipal Committee gave an undertaking within a fortnight to maintain a satisfactory account of the amount received from the respondents and refund the amount so recovered from them in case he respondents succeeded in their suits.
5. ' The petitioner, instead of giving the requisite undertaking as ordered the learned Single Judge approached this Court, and challenged the validity of his order.
6. ' Section 33 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, provides or the levy of taxes, rates, tolls and fees mentioned in the Third Schedule it the previous sanction of the Government. Under section 34, such every was required to be notified in the official Gazette.
7. It appears that so far as the enhancement of toll-tax is concerned, neither requirements have been complied with. The learned counsel appearing behalf of the petitioner has not disputed this fact nor has he produced before us papers to show that the requirements were indeed complied with. t is, therefore, obvious that the enhancement was illegal.
8. ' We asked the learned counsel if the petitioner was still prepared to give the undertaking as ordered by the High Court but the learned counsel ailed to take advantage of this opportunity.
9. ' There is no [substance in these (petitions, and they are accordingly dismissed.