Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 952 of 1985, decided on 21st January, 1986.

(From the judgment of Lahore High, Court Lahore, dated 14‑9‑1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 799 of 1985).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss.156, 157 & 160‑A‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Petitioners aggrieved by order of Additional Commissioner/ delegatee of Government directing them to hold cattle market on a day other than on Friday‑‑High Court in its impugned order observing that petitioners were not without remedy and could agitate said matter before District Co‑ordination Committee set up under S. 160‑A of Ordinance which was more appropriate body for examining such question‑‑Counsel for petitioners stating that they had already decided to approach appropriate Co‑ordination Committee for resolution of dispute‑‑Controversy standing dissolved by said statement of counsel for petitioner, no useful purpose likely to be served by examining and further interpreting relevant provisions of law‑‑Petition dismissed in circumstances.

Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Malik Azam Rasool, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.

Date of hearing: 21st January, 1986.

‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 14‑9‑1985 of the Lahore High Court;, whereby a Constitutional petition involving a dispute about‑cattle market between two Local Councils, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.

It needs to be noted that the Zila Council, Sialkot through its Chairman who is respondent No.4 in the petition has made an application to be transposed as petitioner.' None of the learned counsel raised any objection to this request. We accordingly transposed Zila Council, Sialkot, as petitioner No.2 in the present petition, the first being Chiragh Din son of Miran Bakhsh, Petitioner was granted cattle market lease by Zila Council, Sialkot, for three years‑‑7‑2‑1984 to 6‑2‑1987‑‑At a progressive rate, on 7th February, 1984. In December, 1984 another Local Council namely, Municipal Committee, Pasrur, granted a similar cattle market lease to respondent No.2 for a place within its territorial jurisdiction which is only 14 kilometres from the place where the other Local Council i.e. Zila Council, had granted lease to the petitioner. The lease by the Pasrur Local Council was for one year i.e. 1‑1‑1985 to 31‑12‑1985. Such like grant of leases by territorial adjacent Local Councils has often given rise to litigation between the Local Councils and/or the contractors on the assumption that one influences the volume of the recovery of commission of the other. This also happened in the present case. The contractor of the Municipal Committee, Pasrur, complained to the Additional Commissioner, who it is stated, is delegatee of the Government under sections 156 and 157 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. There were several items of grievance. The learned counsel mentioned three. One, that the Zila Council could not have granted the lease for a period of three years and further that the market under the lease granted by the Zila Council could not be held on the same day i.e. Friday for which the Municipal Committee had granted the lease. And lastly that the Zila Council should not permit the charge of less than 4% as commission as otherwise there would be cut throat competition between the two Local Councils. This complaint was resisted by the petitioners. The Additional Commissioner acting as delegatee under sections 156 and 157 of the .Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, accepted the respondents' application and issued the necessary directions, which are relevant. One that the period of three years of the lease granted by petitioner No.2 to petitioner No.1 was reduced to one year and the petitioners were directed not to hold the market on Fridays and further that the petitioners were directed not to charge less than 4% as commission:

The petitioners sought remedy in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. It upheld the directions of the Additional Commissioner except that with regard to Friday, it was held that the parties should seek resolution of this question from the relevant Co‑coordinating Committee constituted under the law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the grievance with regard to the charge of commission at a certain rate nor has he seriously challenged the reduction of the period from three years to one year; as according to him, the petitioners would be at liberty to again lease out the market at the expiry of one year. He, however, has seriously contested the power of the Additional Commissioner to direct the petitioners to fix a day other than Friday for their market. He has relied on the language used in sections 156 and 157 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which read as follows:

If, in the opinion of Government, anything done or intended to be done by or on behalf of a local council or Committee is not in conformity with law or is in any way against public interest, Government for reasons to be recorded may ‑

(a) quash the proceedings;

(b) suspend the execution of any resolution passed or order made by the local council or Committee; and

(c) prohibit the doing of anything proposed to be done.

Government may direct any local council or Committee or any person or authority responsible thereto, to take within such period as may be specified such action as may be necessary for carrying out the purpose of the Ordinance.

(2) Where after due enquiry, Government is satisfied that a local council or Committee or person or authority has failed to comply with any direction made under subsection (1), Government may appoint a person or persons to give effect to such direction and may further direct that the expenses incurred in connection therewith shall be borne by the local council or Committee.

For purposes of sections 156 and 157, "Committee" means Divisional Co‑ordination Committee or District Co‑ordination Committee constituted under the Ordinance."

Undoubtedly, the powers given to the Government/its delegatee come in clash with the independence of the local councils in their affairs. It might have required serious examination whether or not these' provisions in view of the projected aims and objects of the concerned legislation should not be construed very strictly. And further whether or not the determination as to whether a certain action is or is not against 'public interest' should not remain subject to the scrutiny by the Courts. These are important points worth consideration. But in the circumstances of this case, need not be examined herein. The only point left for determination is with regard to the directive of the Additional Commissioner to the petitioners to hold their market on a day other than Friday. The High Court has not left this direction undiluted. In this behalf, it observed as follows:

"As held above, the lease in question could not be granted for more than one year which period has, in any case, expired on 7‑2‑1985. It is, therefore, no more necessary to examine and determine the validity of the other direction regarding the change of day for holding the cattle market. This is no more an alive issue so far as the present petition is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, pointed out that in the presence of this direction, Zillah Council shall be precluded from holding the cattle market in question on Fridays. Zillah Council, in my view, is not without remedy. It can agitate this matter before the District ( ) Co‑ordination Committee set up under section 160‑A of the Ordinance which is more appropriate body for examining and deciding such questions which involve the interest of more than one local councils in the district. Needless to point out that the Additional Commissioner gave the direction for holding the cattle market at Badhiana on a day other than Friday for the reason that the Municipal Committee, Pasrur, was also holding its cattle market on that day. Question of proximity of the two cattle markets can also be more appropriately examined by the Co‑ordination Committee."

When questioned, learned counsel for the petitioners frankly stated that they have already decided to take benefit of this observation and would approach the appropriate Co‑ordination Committee for resolution of the dispute between the two local councils. He further stated that a formal application would be made before the relevant Co‑ordination Committee as soon as possible. When an application is made it is agreed by the learned counsel for both the parties that it should be expeditiously disposed of preferably within two months.

Needless to observe that the Additional Commissioner (the Government or its delegatee) as the law now stands can also examine and correct the decision of the Co‑ordination Committee, but that question will arise only when someone feels aggrieved of it or otherwise the Government takes any action in that behalf. For the time being the controversy stands resolved by the statement of the learned counsel for petitioner that the concerned Co‑ordination Committee shall be approached by the petitioners.

That being so no useful purpose would be served by examining and further interpreting the afore-quoted provisions. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed.

M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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