Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

1991 P L C 318

[Lahore High Court]

Before Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J

RUPALI POLYESTER LTD.

versus

EMPLOYEES' OLD-AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION and another

Writ Petition No. 6510 of 1990, heard on 7th November, 1990.

(a) Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)-

----S.12---Books of Accounts---Requisition of---Assessment of contribution---All the


documents which establishment was required to be produced and examined were fully
covered by S. 12(1) of Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976--Contention that
establishment could not be legally directed to produce general ledger, etc. had no force.

Messrs Agri-Auto Industries Ltd. v. Employees' Old-Age Benefit Institution, Hub Region
and two others 1990 PLC 21 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--

----Art. 199---Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976), Ss. 33, 34 & 35---
Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Petitioner having three adequate remedies
available to resort to under provisions of S. 33, 34 and 35 of Employees' Old-Age
Benefits Act, 1976, which it did not avail before invoking Constitutional jurisdiction---
Petitioner was afforded a number of opportunities to produce record/books of accounts by
Employees Old-Age Institution to ascertain if petitioner had paid his contribution but it
failed to produce the same and chose to have a writ issued against assessment made by
the Institution---Held, petitioner should have pursued its remedies with the Institution as
provided by statute and Constitutional petition was not competent.

Messrs Cowasjee & Sons v. Director, Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution 1980
P L C 752 (a); Muhammad Shams Eram Usmani v. Kar. B.C. Authority 1989 C L C 193;
Allah Ditta and others v. Malik Ijaz Hussain 1986 SCMR 959; William Lawrence v.
Government of Pakistan and others 1986 SCMR 1077; Munir Ahmad Munir v. The
Province of Punjab through the Secretary, Home Department, Lahore 1987 S C M R 396:
Allah Bakhsh and another v. Muhammad Ismail and others 1987 S C M R 810 and
Muhammad Aslam v. Member Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another
1988 SCMR1803rel.

Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Income-tax Officer, Circle V PLD 1980 Lah. 449; Ch. Abdul
Hamid v. Deputy Commissioner and others 1985 S C M R 359; Pakistan Burmah Shell
Limited v. Mrs. Nasreen Irshad and others 1989 S C M R 1892 and The Murree Brewery
Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division
and 2 others P L D 1972 S C 279 ref,

Atta-ur-Rehman Sheikh for Petitioner.

Abdul Hayee for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 7th November, 1990.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, an industrial concern, through this Constitutional petition, has prayed for a
declaration that the orders of the respondents dated 15-4-1990, 12-8-1990 and 28-8-1990
are without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

Page No. 1 of 5
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was registered with respondent No. 1. The
respondents felt that the petitioner was not making payment of contribution in accordance
with the labour employed by it and salaries paid to this labour. The petitioner, therefore,
was directed to produce the following books of account for verification of the amount of
contribution:--

(1) Salary/wages register or sheets.

(2) Cash Books.

(3) General Ledger.

(4) Attendance Register.

(5) Contribution Cards (PR-04) and

(6) Any other documents relating to the employment of insured persons and payment of
wages.

It seems that the petitioner initially promised to furnish these books but did not honour its
commitment, therefore, respondent No. 2 issued letter dated 12-8-1990. As the same
remained un-responded, therefore, respondent No. 2 proceeded to assess the amount of
contribution payable by it according to the data available with him and intimated the
same to the petitioner vide letter dated 28-8-1990. The petitioner has now impugned all
these orders/memos of the respondents through this Constitutional petition. The petition
was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents who have entered
appearance and contested the petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the petition, urged that the
respondents are not entitled to direct the petitioner to produce books of account other than
specified in section 12 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The argument in
nutshell is that the order for production of General Ledger and other documents is
patently illegal. The learned counsel, in support of his contention has relied on Messes
Agri-Auto Industries Ltd. v. Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution, Hub Region and
two others 1990 P L C 21.

4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary
objection to tile effect that the petition is incompetent as there are at least three remedies
one after the other available to the petitioner under the Act itself. The learned counsel in
this behalf has referred to section 33 of the EOBI Act, 1976 under which the petitioner
can file a complaint. This is to be followed by review application under section 34 and
ultimately the petitioner has right of appeal to the Board of Directors under section 35.
The learned counsel, in this behalf, has referred to unreported decisions of this Court in
Writ Petition No.4284 of 1989 `Noon Textile v. EOBI', W.P. 2314 of 1985 `PCT Indus. v.
EOBI' and unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in CPSLA 515-K of 1989

Employees’ Old-Age Benefits Institution v. Agri-Auto Industries Ltd.'. He has also placed
reliance on the reported judgments in the cases Messrs Cowasjee and Sons v. Director,
Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (1980 P L C 752a) and Muhammad Shams
Eram Usmani v. Kar. B.C. Authority 1989 C L C 193.

5. On merits the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has raised factual
controversy which cannot be resolved in Constitutional petition. It is submitted that the
petitioner was continuously making short payments and in spite of the fact that it was
pointed out to it by respondent No. 2 but the petitioner did not mend itself and also failed
to get the exact amount determined, therefore, there was no way out with respondent No.
2 except to make his own assessment on the data available with him. The learned counsel,
in this behalf, submitted the following data:--

Period Number of Salary Paid

employees

Page No. 2 of 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actual Shown Actual Shown

Dec. 873 388 Rs10,38,799.37 Rs2,82,121.00--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The learned counsel submitted that his clients have taken up different months and in this
behalf, he has placed on the record a statement for June 1988 and June 1989. He
submitted that the petitioner continued in the same pattern throughout this period. The
learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was rightly directed to produce general
ledgers etc., and the judgment of the Quetta High Court has been set aside by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as is clear from the copy of judgment dated 29-1-1990. placed on the
record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the preliminary objection as to
competency of the writ petition, has argued that since the petitioner has challenged the
jurisdiction of the respondents, therefore, the remedies provided under the Employees'
Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, are neither adequate nor efficacious. In this behalf the
learned counsel has referred to Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Income-tax Officer Circle V PLD
1980 Lah. 449; Ch. Abdul Hamid v. Deputy Commissioner and others 1985 SCMR 359
and Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited v. Mrs. Nasreen Irshad and others 1.989 SCMR
1892.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties and have also gone through the file as well as relevant provisions of law and
precedent cases. Section 12 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, reads as
under:--

"Officials of Institution to check employer's books.--(1) Any official of the Institution,


duly authorised by a certificate in a form specified in the Regulations, may, for the
purpose of inquiring into the correctness of any of the particulars stated in the records or
returns referred to in section 10 or for the purpose of ascertaining whether any of the
provisions of this Act have been complied with---

(a) require an employer to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary;
or

(b) at any reasonable time, enter any establishment or other premises occupied by such
employer and require any person found incharge thereof to produce and allow him to
examine such accounts books and other documents relating to the employment of persons
and payment of wages, or to furnish to him such information as he may consider
necessary; or

(c) examine, with respect to any matter relevant to the purposes aforesaid, the employer,
his agent or any person found in such establishment or other premises, or any other
person whom the said official has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been an
insured person.

(2) The official referred to in subsection (1) shall be bound to secrecy as regards all
matters with which he becomes acquainted in the performance of his duties and which do
not relate to matters provided for in this Act.

(3) If an employer fails to maintain records or to submit returns as required by the


Regulations, or otherwise fails to comply with the provisions of subsection (1) and
thereby makes it difficult to ascertain the identity of persons required to be insured or the
amount of contribution payable, the contribution shall be assessed on the basis of such
evidence as the Institution may find satisfactory for this purpose.
Page No. 3 of 5
It is clear from the context of the provision that the purpose is to ascertain the
contribution payable by the employer and for that purpose it can be directed to produce
the following:--

(1) Accounts Books: and

(2) Other documents relating to employment of persons and payment of wages to them.

To the same effect is the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the
case of `Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution v. Agri-Auto Industries (CPSLA No.
515-K of 1989). The relevant portion reads as under:--

"* * * * * * * * *For the purpose of verification certainly the employer could be called
upon to make available at his office the records mentioned in section 12(l)(b). * * * * * *
* * * * * * it would be for the employer to make available at its office the accounts books
and the accounts books will include General Ledger also. *****"

It is, therefore, clear that the Institution can requisition books of accounts of all types
which include general ledgers and other documents must pertain to the employment of
persons and wages paid to them. The perusal of the first impugned order dated 15-4-1990
shows that there is nothing wrong with the requisition. All the documents required to be
produced and examined are fully covered by subsection (1) of section 12. The learned
counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Quetta matter, frankly conceded that in view of this judgment his main argument
that the petitioner could not be legally directed to produce general ledger etc., has no
force. He further submitted that the respondents should now proceed from the point of
order dated 28-8-1990 in accordance with the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as reproduced above.

8. Now coming to the preliminary objections, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of


sections 33 to 35 of the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act, 1976, which read as follows:-

"33. Decisions on complaints questions and disputes.--If any complaint is received or any
question or dispute arises as to--

(a) whether a person is an insured person within the meaning of this Act;

(b) the amount of wages of an insured person for the purposes of this Act;

(c) the amount of contribution payable by an employer in respect of an insured person;

(d) the person who is the employer in respect of an insured person;

(e) entitlement to any benefit under this Act or as to the amount and duration thereof;

(ee) registration of industry or establishment; or

(f) any other matter in respect of any contribution or any benefit referred to in clause (e),
or dues payable or recoverable under this Act relating to contributions or the aforesaid
benefits; the matter shall be decided by the Institution, in such manner, and within such
time, as the Regulations may provide and the institution shall notify its decision to the
person concerned in writing, stating therein the reason for its decision.

34. Review of decisions.--The- institution may, subject to regulations, on new facts being
brought to its notice, review a decision given by it under section 33:

Provided that no decision shall be reviewed without giving the person concerned an
opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence in support of, or against, the decision,
as the case may be.

35. Appeal to Board.--Subject to rules, a person aggrieved by a decision of the Institution


under section 33 or on a review under section 34, may appeal to the Board."
Page No. 4 of 5
It is clear from the text of the above provisions that the establishment which is aggrieved
of an order of the Institution has at least three remedies one after the other. The petitioner
did not avail the same. The competency of writ petition without availing the remedy
under statute was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. In this
behalf, reference can be made to Allah Ditta and others v. Malik Ijaz Hussain 1986 S C M
R 959, William Lawrence v. Government of Pakistan and others 1986 S C M R 1077,
Munir Ahmad Munir v. The Province of Punjab through the Secretary, Home Department,
Lahore 1987 SCMR 396, Allah Bakhsh and another v. Muhammad Ismail and others
1987 SCMR 810 and Muhammad Aslam v. Member Colonies, Board of Revenue,
Punjab, Lahore and another 1988 S C M R 1803. Suffice it to reproduce the relevant
portion of para. 10 of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Allah Ditta and
others:-

........... Accordingly, we are of the opinion that if in any case the High Court
considers that a writ petition should not be entertained on account of the failure of an
aggrieved party to avail of another adequate remedy such a decision is not only entirely
legitimate but is indeed in furtherance of the intendment of Article 199 of the
Constitution. In fact in the present case, since the case was remanded by the Federal Land
Commission to the Chief Land Commissioner for decision afresh in the light of the
directions given by it, it was all the more appropriate that a revision petition should have
been filed before the said authority to enable it to verify if its directions had indeed been
carried out."

I am conscious of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to The Murree Brewery
Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division
and 2 others P L D 1972 S C 279, but in that case the order was attacked on the ground
that it was wholly without authority, partial, unjust and mala fide. It is true that in this
case also the orders were attacked on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but the objection
was misconceived. Reliance was placed on the case of Messrs Agri-Auto Industries Ltd.
v. Employees' Old Age-Benefit Institution, Hub-Region and two others (Supra) which
was partially set aside by the Supreme Court.

This is not all. Even the last portion of the impugned order dated 28-8-1990 reads
as follows:-- "'

"As a very special case we once again give you another opportunity to produce all the
record by 10th September, 1990 failing which the amount assessed will become due and
will be recovered as arrears of land revenue."

This portion is strictly in accordance with the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case Messrs Agri-Auto Industries Ltd. (Supra). This renders petition incompetent.
The petitioner should have pursued his remedies with the Institution as provided by
statute. This lends support to the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that
the writ petition is incompetent and to the same effect are the un-reported judgments of
this Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. The same view was
expressed by the Karachi High Court in Messrs Cowasjee and Sons v. Director, Sindh
Employees' Social Security Institution (Supra). The learned counsel for the respondents
has rightly pointed out that the provisions of sections 57 to 59 of the West Pakistan
Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, are para materia to the provisions of
sections 33 to 35 of the Employees Old Age Benefits Act, 1976. I, therefore, have no
hesitation in upholding the preliminary objection.

9. The result is that this petition is dismissed as incompetent. However, the petitioner can
comply with the direction of respondent No. 2 as contained in the last order dated 28-8-
1990.

There is no order as to costs.

M.Y.H./R-260/L Petition dismissed.

Page No. 5 of 5
1990 PLC 21

[Quetta High Court]

Before Mir Hazar Khan Khoso and Munawar Ahmed Mirza, JJ

Messrs AGRI AUTO INDUSTRIES Ltd.

Versus

EMPLOYEES' OLD-AGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION, HUB REGION and 2 others

Constitution Petition No. 60 of 1989, decided on 23rd May, 1989. (a) Employees'
Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)---

---Ss.11 & 12---Examination of record---Authorised official of Authority can examine


only such record and documents of duly registered establishment or Industry, which
clearly related to employment of persons, payment of wages to employees or matters
connected therewith---Directions of Authority to Establishment, to produce general
ledgers, pay scrolls of employees, balance sheets and Income Tax returns for inspection,
were patently illegal as such documents could not be legitimately examined by the
Authority.

(b) Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)---

---S.13 (2)---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss.81 & 83--Recovery
of contribution of arrears as land revenue---Company had regularly been depositing
contribution regarding its insured employees with Authority from date of its registration
with Authority, but Authority without taking into consideration un-controverted
documents on record showing deposit of contribution and without determining amount
validly due from company, directed recovery as arrears of land revenue---Hasty and
hostile manner in which proceedings for recovery by way of land revenue was pressed by
Authority without properly determining amount due, held, were not only was unjust, but
also was mala fide---Notice of demand issued by Authority to company and proceedings
initiated by Authority for recovery were declared to be illegal.

PLD 1962 SC 384; PLD 1967 Kar. 673; PLD 1976 Kar. 610; Abdul Latif v. Government
of West Pakistan and others P L D 1962 S C 384; The Province of West Pakistan v.
Muhammad Ayub Khoro P L D 1967 Kar. 673; Ark Ocean Lines Ltd. (A Private
Company), Karachi v. The Director of Industries and Mineral Development (Coal Control
Wing) and another P L D 1976 Kar. 610 and Zakria A. Bawani v. City Deputy Collector
Kar. and 2 others P L D 1974 Kar. 1008 ref.

JUDGMENT

MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, J.---Brief facts as set out in the Petition are that
petitioner is a public limited Company established at Hub for manufacturing Agri auto
parts. On or about 18th October, 1982 said Company applied for registration under Rule
3(1) of the Employees Old Age Benefits (Registration of Employees and Insured Persons)
Rules 1976, where upon certificate of registration was granted by the Employees Old Age
Benefits Institution (Respondent No.l) on 22-12-1982. It is the case of petitioner
Company that from the date of its registration with Employees Old Age Benefits
Institution, contribution regarding its insured employees was regularly deposited with
concerned authorities and record thereof was throughout inspected by the officials of
respondent No.l. According to petitioner the Assistant Director Regional Office EOBI
Hub, on 11-3-1989 gave them a demand notice No.HBR/45/89/495 calling upon them to
pay within 15 days a sum of Rs.3,45,048 with 50% increase amounting to Rs.1,72,524 in
all totalling Rs.5,17,572 towards arrears of contribution due till 27-3-1989. It however
transpired later that aforesaid demand pertained to period commencing from
September,1982 till February 1989 calculated short average of contribution at the rate of
Rs.4313 per month. Petitioner in response to aforesaid demand vide letter dated
21-3-1989 asked for necessary details from respondent No.l to give adequate reply. It
may be seen that respondent No.l by means of letter No.HPR/EOBI/DNC0016/89/612
Page No. 1 of 4
dated 6-4-1989 directed the petitioner to produce within 2 days certain documents
namely (i) general ledgers (ii) pay scrolls of the employees (iii) balance sheets and (iv)
Income Tax returns; all for the period during September, 1982 till February 1989.
Petitioners through letter No. ALL/GMF/89/166 dated 9-4-1989 again demanded details
already sought for. It may be seen that on the same date vie. 9-4-1989 certain
information and details were supplied to the petitioner. Subsequently on 12-4-1989
respondent No.2 in the purported exercise of authority as Assistant Collector Grade-I
issued notice under Section 81 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. 1967, thus
requiring petitioner to clear the arrears to the tune of Rs.5,17,572 for which demand was
already raised. Petitioner again vide letter dated 20-4-1989 explained that actual
payment was made by him to respondents but without consulting the record unjustifiably
demand was being raised. Respondent No. 1 again vide letter
No.HUB/EOBI/DNC-00016/89/678 dated 22nd April, 1989 repeated the demand for
clearing arrears within 5 days otherwise threatened for issuance of distress warrants under
section 83 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967. Thus feeling aggrieved from
demand dated 11-3-88 and subsequent issuance of notice under sections 81 and 83 of the
Land Revenue Act petition was filed on 26-4-1989.

2. Mr. Akhtar Ali Mahmood, learned counsel for petitioner raised following contentions:

(i) No contribution can be deemed to be due or payable unless same is properly


determined by the competent authority in accordance with procedure prescribed by
"Employees Old Age Benefits (Determination of Complaints, Questions and Disputes)
Regulation 1980.

(ii) Impugned notice suggests arrears from year 1982 whereas contribution was regularly
deposited, besides demand is apparently defective and without jurisdiction, because even
otherwise there is no determination as contemplated by law. Reliance in this behalf was
placed on the reported judgments (a) PLD 1962 SC 384, (b) PLD 1967 Karachi 673, (c)
PLD 1976 Karachi 610.

(iii) The respondents have no jurisdiction to summon record of company other than that
specified under Section 12 of the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act, 1976. Therefore
insistence of respondents for producing the general ledgers (b) balance sheets pay scrolls
and (c) Income Tax returns is patently illegal.

3. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmad, learned standing counsel appearing
for the respondents strenuously contended that notice of the arrears issued by respondent
is quite legal, valid and with jurisdiction.

Respondents are competent to direct petitioner or other organizations to produce original


record. Learned counsel further argued that alternative remedies were available to the
petitioners under Sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act 1976
and relevant rules concerning the same, therefore present

Constitutional Petition is not maintainable.

4. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by learned counsel for parties.

Primary question which arises for determination would be whether amount of arrears
claimed by respondents from petitioner in respect of average short-fall from September,
1982 till February, 1989 was properly determined by the competent authority under
prescribed procedure; and whether or not proceeding initiated by respondent No. 2, for
effecting recovery as arrears of land revenue were proper and justified under the law. It
may be seen that record and documents of every Industry or establishment registered with
Employees Old Age Benefit Institution in accordance with Section 11 of "Employees Old
Age Benefit Act XIV of 1976 "(hereinafter referred to as THE ACT") can be checked by
the officials of Department duly authorised in this behalf within the limits prescribed by
section 12. Accordingly authorised official would be entitled to examine only such record
and documents of the Establishment or Industry, which clearly relate to employment of
the persons, payment of wages to employees or matters connected therewith. Evidently
according to section, the contribution is payable by employees from month to month
basis, and on failure to deposit the same by due date, increase upto 50% of the amount
Page No. 2 of 4
due could be lawfully claimed. Section 13(2) of "The Act" indicates powers for
recovering arrears as land revenue. Documents on record which have not been
controverted, suggest that petitioner has been regularly depositing certain amounts
towards contribution from the date of its registration with the institution, (Respondent
No. 1). It is not understandable how respondent without any complaint or ostensible
basis, suddenly vociferously started claiming huge arrears allegedly accumulated in the
last seven years. Suspicious manner in which demand appears to have been raised
obviously provided a legitimate right to ask for details forming basis of said arrears. It is
surprising that instead of supplying necessary information the respondents started
threatening petitioner by forcing production of certain documents some of which i.e.
Income Tax returns of General ledgers could not be legitimately examined under `The
Act'. Such conduct of the official was apparently contrary to normal discipline and
principle of fair play. No doubt, law vests authority in respondents for compelling
petitioner to produce certain record and books but the limits thereof have been obviously
specified under section 12 of `The Act', which thereafter could not be transgressed. It may
also be noted, that though period for which dispute could be raised for determination
before the institution is not mentioned in the law nevertheless section 5 of Employees 01d
Age Benefits (General) Regulations, 1980 regulates maintenance of record and
submission of return by the employees whereby under subsection (2) record pertaining to
persons in the insurable employment of employer was to be maintainable for two years or
till persons under insurable employment are hued Pl-03 Card, whichever is later. It is not
disputed that P1-03 Cards have not been issued to the employees of petitioner so far. But
at the same time no issuance of same when admittedly petitioner's establishment was
registered with the institution (i.e. Respondent No.l) towards September, 1982 would cast
reflection on the conduct of respondent rather than penalising the petitioner. Thus
considering relevant provisions of `The Act' and Regulations, 1980 we are I prone to
observe that Assistant Director Hub Region could seek inspection and examination of
only those documents, which are prescribed under section 12, or any other express
provision of law. Accordingly directions contained in letters dated 6-4-1989 and
9-4-1989 are defective.

It may further be seen that details supplied by respondent vide letter dated 9 4-1989 are
vague and scanty. It is not indicative whether demand thus raised relates to average short
payment; total amount payable by the petitioners from September, 1982 till date; or
balance payable after adjusting various amounts deposited by petitioner during said
period. Factual position that demand for payment of arrears was raised for the first time
through notice dated 11-3-1989 is not disputed on record. Therefore it was incumbent
upon the respondent to have taken into consideration petitioner's objections and stand
concerning deposits continuously made in this behalf, as well as claim for adjustment of
that amount. Besides some basis ought to have been mentioned for straightaway
demanding maximum increase of the contribution, which in spite of the protest of
petitioner, unfortunately has not been explained.

Additionally, before directing recovery as arrears of land revenue, it was obligatory, that
amount to be realised from petitioner should have been determined. Since objections are
expressly raised by petitioner and payment of the amount or at least a part thereof was
specifically asserted, therefore, factum of real amount payable by petitioner needed
consideration and categories determination by the Institution (Respondent No. 1), or its
lawful delegates. It maybe seen that hasty and hostile manner in which proceedings for
recovery by way of land revenue are being pressed without pr: pearly determining
amount due, is not only unjust but also smells of mala tides. We are also fortified by the
broad principle of law enunciated in the following reported judgments:-

(1) Abdul Latif v. Government of West of Pakistan and others (P L D 1962 S C 384).

(2) The Province of West Pakistan v. Muhammad Ayub Khoro P L D 1967 Karachi 673).

(3) Ark Ocean Lines Ltd. (A Private Company) Karachi v. The Director of Industries and
Mineral Development (Coal Control Wing) and another (P L D 1976 Karachi 610).

(4) Zakria A. Bawani v. City Deputy Collector Karachi and two others (P L ® D 1974
Karachi 1008).

Page No. 3 of 4
From the above discussion we are inclined to hold that notice of demand and proceedings
initiated by the respondents without determining the amount validly due from petitioner,
are unlawful and in excess of jurisdiction vested in them. Besides Assistant Director Hub
has flagrantly disregarded law by raising demand of arrears without providing details to
petitioner and compelling production of documents not sanctioned by the statute in
addition to misusing powers prescribed by law. The proceedings thus drawn up by
respondents being patently illegal are declared to be without lawful authority and of no
legal effect.

However, we may observe that respondents, on providing fair opportunity to petitioner


will be at liberty to raise proper demand, and may also examine relevant record to the
expect permissible, and thus draw proceedings for recovery as contemplated by law.

The petition is accordingly accepted in the above terms. Parties are however, left to bear
their own costs.

H.B.T./339/Q Petition accepted.

Page No. 4 of 4
Page No. 5 of 4