Find a Lawyer

CH. SABIR ALI versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT

(Business Rules, 2004, Article 140A - Local Government ?? Duties of Metropolitan and Municipal Corporations - Local Government Taxes - \\\ Public Place \\\, Testimonials - Required Setup Requirements for Selected Roads to Make Business Local Parking Fees Regulated by Locals The City District Government et etition et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et et. Parking fee rates will be charged through the City District Government. Was notified and they were determined The applicants believed that being a private contractor, they could not be regulated by the local city district government or their parking company. Idity review - \\\ Public place was defined under Section 2 (S) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 means any building, premises or place where the public has access and can be used to provide relief. I will also include a private space in which the public has permanent and permanent access. - A place where the public has the right to access on a regular and permanent basis means \\\ public place \\. \, So parking in public places falls within the scope of the Local City District Government and its parking company. ?? The private parking lot operating in a public place was obliged to collect parking rates as reported by the City District Government and would be regulated by the local city. District Government Parking Company, because it has parking in public places

P L D 2017 Lahore 370

Before Ayesha A. Malik, Jr

Ch. SABIR ALI—Petitioner 

versus

CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT and others—Respondents

Writ Petition No. 10795 of 2015, decided on 15th February, 2017.

Punjab Local Government Act (XVIII of 2013)—

Ss.87, 2(ss), 115 s 141—Punjab Local 'Government

(Commercialization Rules, 2004, Art. 140A—Local Government—Functions of Metropolitan and Municipal Corporations—Local Government Taxation—"Public place", definition of—Setback requirements for the roads selected for commercialization—Regulation of parking fees by Local City District Government through the local Parking Company established by City District Government—Petitioners, who were private contractors running various parking stands within or around commercial buildings, inter alia, impugned notification issued by Local City District Government, whereby parking fee rates to be charged by petitioners were notified and fixed—Contention of the petitioners was that being private contractors, they could not be regulated by the Local City District Government or its Parking Company—Validity—"Public place " was defined under S. 2(ss) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 to mean any building, premises or place to which the public had access and said definition clarified that the same would include a private place to which the public had regular and continuous access—Any place where the public would have a right of access on a regular and continuous basis fell within the meaning of "public place", hence parking in public places fell within the scope of the Local City District Government and its Parking Company—Private parking-stand operating in a public place was bound to collect parking rates notified by the City District Government and would be regulated by the Local City District Government Parking Company, since it controlled and monitored parking at public places—All parking stands, in the present case, were located in public places as they were either shopping malls, business centers or hospitals and such areas which were accessed by the public, regularly on a daily basis within which the facility of parking must be provided, therefore the argument that the petitioners were private contractors operating parking spaces within private premises was factually and legally incorrect—Test as per the Punjab • Local Government Act, 2013 was whether the parking space fell within the meaning of a *public place”—Punjab Local Government (Commercialization) Rules, 2004, provided that building owners were required to provide proper provision for parking within the building < premises, and the "setback area" had been surrendered in favour of the . City District Government for such purpose and thus so far as the setback area was concerned: the same fell within the regulatory control of the Local City District Government—High Court observed that moving forward local City District Government established Parking Company shall devise a parking policy and plan parking spaces within the city, which policy must be robust and was not reactive in nature, but catered to the requirement of the city and furthermore, that the same should change and evolve with changing patterns in the usage of private and public vehicles and would consider the traffic issues; and furthermore, that the Parking Company shall work in close liaison with the traffic police so that parking spaces had the least impact on the flow of traffic—Constitutional petitions were disposed of, accordingly, [pp. 377, 378, 379] A, B,C&D

Petitioner in person.

_Mian Abdul Aziz, Talaat Farooq Sheikh, Mian Irfan Akram for

Petitioners in connected Writ Petitions and Ms. Noor Aitzaz, vice counsel for Petitioner in W.P. No.26939 of 2015.

Ch. Sultan Mahmood, A.A.G.

Salman Mansoor for Respondent LDA.

Ms. Lubna Altaf for Lahore Parking Company Respondent No.8.

Date of hearing: 20th December, 2016.

advocate from Sangla Hill lawyer