| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5912 2024 SLD 5912 = 2024 PLD 129 |
Balochistan High Court
C.Ps. Nos. 195, 1079 and 1309 of 2020, decided on 4th May, 2023.
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan, C.J. and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J
Osman A. Hadi, Mujeeb Ahmed Hashmi and Sarosh Jameel for Petitioners. Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Assistant Advocate General for
Respondent No. 1. Syed Tanweer Ashraf for
Respondent No. 2.
C.Ps. Nos. 195, 1079 and 1309 of 2020, decided on 4th May, 2023.
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan, C.J. and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J
Osman A. Hadi, Mujeeb Ahmed Hashmi and Sarosh Jameel for Petitioners. Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Assistant Advocate General for
Respondent No. 1. Syed Tanweer Ashraf for
Respondent No. 2.
AHMEDULLAH and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Addl. Chief Secretary (Dev) and others---Respondents
Law: Balochistan Development Authority Act, 1974
Section: X,18
Law: Balochistan Ship Breaking Industry Rules, 1979.
Section: 15(2)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199,270A
(a) Balochistan Development Authority Act (X of 1974)-------S. 18---Balochistan Ship Breaking Industry Rules, 1979, S. 15(2)---Constitution of Pakistan Arts. 199 & 270-A---Tonnage fee, levy of---Petitioners alleged that they were carrying out their activity on the private plots, as such the demand of respondents for tonnage fee was illegal---Validity---Martial Law Order (MLR) No. 115, which was subsequently adopted by Parliament by inserting--Article 270-A in the Constitution on 30.12.1985 through 8th Amendment in the Constitution, contemplated that the ship breaking industry in the coastal area shall be conducted only and exclusively on a plot or land allotted for that purpose by the Balochistan Development Authority---Further, ship breaking in any other area/place without the express permission of the Balochistan Development Authority was prohibited in the said order---Thus, the contention of the petitioners that they were carrying out scrapping of imported vessels by beaching the same at private plots had no relevance or significance as any such activity was prohibited under the law--Petitions were accordingly dismissed.Mustafa Impex's Case PLD 2016 SC 808 ref.(b) Interpretation of statutes-------Fiscal statute---Fee, charging of---Principles---No doubt fee is always levied on services rendered by Government to its payer---If the charge of money by the Government is not against the service provided, then such levy cannot be termed as fee---In other words, quid pro quo is an essential ingredient which brings a levy within the definition of term 'fee', i.e. charge payable for rendering specific service or extending specific privilege which the payers can avail subject to the conditions that may be attracted to it.Date of hearing: 15th March, 2023.JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD AAMIR NAWAZ RANA, J.---Through this common judgment, we intend disposing of above captioned petitions as identical propositions of law and similar facts are involved in these petitions.2. The petitioners are in the business of shipbreaking at Gaddani. It is the case of petitioners that since they are carrying out scrapping of…