ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No.D-677 of 2018

__________________________________________________________________

Dated: Order with signature of Judge(s)

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on Misc. No.2854/2018

2. For order on office objection No.13.

3. For order on Misc. No.2855/2018

4. For order on Misc. No.2856/2018

5. For hearing of main case.

25.01.2018:-

Mr. Ovais Ali Shah, advocate for the petitioner.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.

1) Urgency granted.

2) Deferred for the time being.

3) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

4&5) Per learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 have issued notices to the petitioner available at pages-21 and 23 with Memo of Petition whereby demanding the payment of charges for advertisement of sign boards of the vendors/retailers shops and vehicles. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Judgment passed by the Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of Continental Biscuits Ltd., versus Federation of Pakistan and others reported in 2017 PTD 1803 wherein it was held that :-

“In the present case, the Cantonment Board Hyderabad is not providing any service to the petitioner for displaying and advertising its products on the bill boards/sign boards of shops on its private vendors/retailers shops. This, in fact, is a private arrangement between the petitioner and the shopkeepers. The petitioner uses bill board/sign boards f shop to advertise it products, at the expense of the petitioner . In the circumstances, the money demanded by the respondents under the name of ‘advertisement fee’ without providing any services in respect thereof is declared illegal on the above principle of quid pro quo.

He relied upon another case of Messrs Coca Cola Beverages Pakistan Limited versus City District Government, Rawalpindi and others reported in 2014 PLC 1135 wherein it was observed that :-

“The City District Government is not providing any service to the petitioner for displaying the name of its product or logo on the façade of shops of private persons. This in fact is a private arrangement between the petitioner and the shopkeepers. The petitioner uses the façade of shops to display his logo. The shops name also appears on the board or the neon-sign at the expense of the petitioner. The money demanded by the respondents cannot be termed as ‘fee’, thus, the respondent City District Government cannot demand advertisement fee from the petitioner and the said demand is declared illegal.

Point requires consideration. Issue notice to the respondents and Advocate General Sindh for 14.02.2018. Till next date of hearing, respondents are restrained to take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notices dated 16.11.2017 and 17.01.2018 available at pages-21 and 23 with Memo of Petition.

JUDGE

JUDGE