IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Present:
Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Mr. Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui
C.P. No. D-4490 of 2013
M/s. I.S.M. Hospital.....................……………...………………….....Petitioner
Versus
Province of Sindh qnd 03 others........…………………………..Respondents
Date of Hearing: 02.02.2017
Mr. Hakim Ali Khan, advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Iqbal
Khurram, advocate for KMC
J U D G M E
N T
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI. J: Through the impugned Notice dated
08.07.2013 (annexure-P/2 at page 27), the respondents have demanded an amount
of Rs.13,43,925/- as Municipal Utility Service Charges
(MUCT). It is worth noting that in the title of the petition, the petitioner is
shown as a hospital, as the office has not raised any objection in this
respect, this court has passed the following order on 28-10-2014:-
"We
have asked counsel for the petitioner to let us know the status of the
petitioner. Initially, he contended that the petitioner is a proprietary
concern and Shoaib Alamgir
is its proprietor but the title of the petition reflects that Shoaib Alamgir is the authorized
person. Even the authority letter at page 21 reflects that Admin has appointed Shoaib Alamgir. Since the status
of the petitioner is unascertained, let in the first instance the status of the
petitioner be intimated. Office to
explain as to how this petition has been entertained without clarification of
the petitioner's title. To come up on 6th November,
2014."
2.
Although, in this matter
respondents have filed their comments, but
the petitioner could not satisfy the court regarding the objection dated
28-10-2014. Time and again the instant petition came up for hearing and on
6-11-2014, one Shoaib Alamgir
appeared before this Court and he requested to amend the title. On his
statement, the title of the petition was allowed to be amended, in the
following terms.
“Shoib Alamgir has effected appearance and states that he is the owner of ISM
Hospital and the title of the petition ought to have recorded as ISM Hospital
through its proprietor. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to amend the
title of the petition.”
3.
Record Shows
that the title of the petition was not amended inspite
of directions. Besides not amending the title an authority letter is also
available on the record, which indicates that one Dr.
Gopi Chand, Administrator of I.S.M. Hospital
authorized Mr. Shoib Alamgir to represent in law suit/constitution petition
being filed against KMC. From the authority letter, an impression is created that
I.S.M. is a body corporate and not a proprietorship. When during the course of
arguments, it was enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether
petitioner is a legal entity and is created under some instrument or is a
registered body? In response to which, he frankly admitted that neither it is a
firm nor a registered body. It is our considered view that petition cannot be
filed by a Hospital, which is neither a company nor an association and as such
is not a legal entity.
4.
It is equally important to
mention that the impugned notice is issued to the owner Mr.
Ghulam Muhammad Shafi and
not in the name of Hospital. In response to a query, the learned counsel
responded that he is the previous owner of the property and the name of the
owner is not changed in the record as yet. In such a situation, the petition in
the present form is not maintainable, hence the same
is dismissed with no order as to cost.
JUDGE
JUDGE