MARKET COMMITTEE, MULTAN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION), MULTAN S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MARKET COMMITTEE, MULTAN VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION), MULTAN S. 21(i)---Market Committee---Allotment of shops/plots, cancellation of---Non-payment of outstanding dues---Remand of matter to the Chairman, Market Committee---High Court held that the act of cancellation by the Chairman Market Committee was not justified and, more particularly, despite cancellation, dues were received which act also nullified the resumption/cancellation---High Court set aside the impugned orders and the matter was remanded to the Chairman, Market Committee to pass appropriate orders after providing an opportunity of audience to the occupants in order to determine the outstanding amount---Propriety---Despite clear observations by the Supreme Court in earlier round of litigation on 18.3.2010, no prompt or swift action was taken by the Market Committee and cancellation notice was issued at belated stage on 22.01.2016 which exhibited the reckless conduct of the Market Committee which waited for such a long time and postponed setting the law into motion for initiating cancellation move at their own will and conscience---Market Committee received the amount without demur and also issued payment challans, therefore, in such a situation, the action of outrightly cancelling the shops/plots was unfair and inequitable, therefore, it would be befitting in the interest of justice and fair-mindedness that the Chairman, Market Committee should determine the gravity of the default, reconcile from the record the amount paid by the occupants including those who have already paid full amount and also determine the liability of the accrued surcharge and penalty, if any, unpaid which crucial subject matter could not be reconciled or adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction but could be decided by the Chairman Market Committee so that the matter may attain finality after such protracted litigation---If the matter is reconsidered within the realm of the directions issued by the High Court, no prejudice will be caused to anyone, rather it would be beneficial to all and easier for the Authority to reconcile from the record the quantum of payment made so far by the alleged defaulters, the defaulted amount, as well as the determination of the up-to-date surcharge and penalty as per the terms and conditions of the allotment and pass order in accordance with law for further proceedings---Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused.

MARKET COMMITTEE, MULTAN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION), MULTAN S — 2023 SCMR 1683 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 SCMR