EXIDE PAKISTAN LIMITED versus CANTONMENT BOARD CLIFTON
Sections 200, 2 (x x x), 2 (viii) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution Petition Board, the applicant's authority took the responsibility of charging the shop board through the cantonment board on the basis that the cantonment This type of revenue cannot be charged by the source. Under the section 200 of the Cantonment Act, 1924, the board of the Cantonment Board was not ineligible to impose validity power, prejudice, rent and fees, but it can only be used with the prior approval and approval of the competent authority (Chief of Army) The staff or any other officer appointed by the government pursuant to section 2 (viii) of the Cantonment Act, 1924) was not available on record to show that such levy had the approval of the authorized authority, The Cantonment Board may use its position to impose dues, rent and fees. In respect of shops located in public markets under section 2 (xxx) of the Act, however, the applicant's shop was not located in a public market but in a private business premises. The Hopboard Fee looks like a completely different style of shop advertising / sign board that did not consider stallions, rentals and fees under Section 200 of the Cantonment Act, 1924. The Shopboard Fees High Court did not authorize or approve the Shop Board Fees and said that the Cantonment Board has no option to receive Shop Board fees from a private commercial premises; Legally had to happen. The option was to allow constitutional application
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
