Find a Lawyer

Revision Application No. 22 of 1974, decided on 26th March, 1985.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--

---S. 115--Municipal Administration Ordinance (X of 1960), Ss. 52, 119, 122 & 124--Enhancement of water rate challenged in Court Authority enhancing such water rate complying with procedure before such enhancement--Plaintiff not availing remedy of appeal provided by S.119 of Ordinance X of 1960--Courts below, held, had jurisdiction to decide suit and first appeal--Such Courts had taken relevant law and facts into consideration and they had decided case in proper manner No justification present for exercise of revisional jurisdiction in circumstances.

Muhammad Shareef for Applicant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 26th March, 1985.

This revision application is directed against the two judgments and decrees of Civil Judge 1st Class, Mirpurkhas dated 30-9-1971 by which the declaratory suit of the applicant was dismissed and the consequent judgment in appeal of District Judge, Tharparkar dated 18-1-1974 where the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed. The applicant had challenged the increase in the water rate from Rs.36 per year to Rs.60 per year imposed by the respondent on the ground that no notice had been served upon the consumers of the water and that the procedure required by the relevant bye-laws had not been followed. Permanent injunction was also sought.

2. The respondent resisted the suit and maintained that the tax 0 Rs.60 was being demanded on the revised rate in accordance with necessary laws and it was to come into effect on 15-4-1970.

3. Three issues in respect of the validity of the increase of water rate and the form of suit and whether suit was barred, were framed. On the side of the applicant/ plaintiff Bunyad Ahmed Khan was examined while the respondent examined Sultan Ahmed. The Civil Judge had dismissed the suit on the finding that the notice in respect of the proposed increase in the water rate as proposed in the resolution of the Municipality dated 30-10-1968 had been published inviting objections. Thereafter, notification was published in the Gazette on 14-3-1970 and the increase was to take effect from 15-4-1970. It was, therefore, held that the increase in the water rate was valid. The suit however is held to be in proper form. It was, however, treated to be barred under provisions of section 119 of Municipal Administration Ordinance of 1960 inasmuch as an equally efficacious remedy of appeal ways available to the applicant which he had not availed.

4. The learned District Judge, Mirpurkhas has, in an elaborate judgment, dealt with the various provisions of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 and after taking into consideration sections 52, 122 and 124 of the said Ordinance as well as Article 19 of Schedule V of the same, he came to the conclusion that a resolution with regard to water supply had been passed by the budget committee on 30th October, 1968 and also a committee was appointed to consider the objections and suggestions. Notice was published in respect of the said water supply scheme and the draft of the bye-laws was made available in the Municipal Office. The Committee formed , had met on 9-1-1969 and considered the objections and made recommendations. The resolution dated 29-1- 1969 was passed by special meeting and the draft laws were adopted and approved. Thereafter, notification was issued by Commissioner, Hyderabad Division according to his sanction to the resolution, which was notified and thereafter the water rate came into force with effect from 15-4-1970. The learned Judge has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the formality required by section 124 of Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 read with section 23 of General Clauses Act as well as the requirement of section, 34 of the M.A. O. 1960 had been fully complied with.

5. The learned District Judge further came to the conclusion that the remedy as provided by section 119 of Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960 had not been availed by the applicant and hence the suit was not competent. .

6. Nothing has been shown to me on the basis of which cool come to the conclusion that the view adopted by the learned District Judge or the Civil Judge is in any way wrong. The learned Judge have the jurisdiction to decide the suit and appeal.. They have taker the relevant law and facts into consideration and they have proceeded to decide the dispute before them in a proper manner and, therefore, this revision is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed

A. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.