Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SECRETARY MARKET COMMITTEE, SETHARAJA AT THARI MIRWA, DISTRICT KHAIRPUR VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and otherss
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Hamid Ali Mirza, Rana Bhagwan Das, Sayed Saeed Ashhad Title:SECRETARY MARKET COMMITTEE, SETHARAJA AT THARI MIRWA, DISTRICT
KHAIRPUR vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and otherss Case No.: C.P.L.As. Nos.251-K to 260-K of 2005 Date of Judgment:2005-10-25 Reported As: 2006 SCMR 385 Result: Leave to appeal granted Judgment ORDER ' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, dated 18-1-2005 dismissing constitutional petitions filed by private respondents against the official respondents as well as the petitioner., 2. Prayer of the writ petitioners before the High Court appears to be that they are not liable to pay Dalali as well as Nangani fee on vegetable and fruits etc. Brought by them from Sukkur to Gambat District Khairpur and to permanently restrain official respondents/their agents from recovering such fee directly or indirectly. 3. The petition was resisted by official respondents as well as the petitioner but, upon consideration of view-point of both the parties, the High Court allowed the petition on the assumption that provisions of section 54 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001 shall prevail over the provisions of section 19 of the Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1939 regarding levy of fee etc. By the Market Committee. 4. It is contended that the High Court suffered from error of law by accepting the overriding effect of the provisions of section 54 of the Ordinance, 2001, thereby rendering the provisions of section 19 of the Act, 1939 as nugatory and redundant, which is against the settled principles for interpretation of statutes. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned judgment, it appears that the question of law raised is of first impression and there appears to be no authoritative pronouncement on the point raised before this Court. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted to consider, inter alia, the aforesaid question of law.