Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

WP No.129536/2018
The Bank of Khyber
Versus
Municipal Corporation Gujrat through its Mayor etc.

JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing 17.11.2020
Advocates for Malik Muhammad Umar Awan,
Petitioners: Mr. Raza Imtiaz Siddiqui, Mr. Jamshed Alam
and Mr. Qadeer Kalyar,
Syed Ali Zafar and Mr. Mubashir Aslam Zar,
Mr. Muhammad Asif Ismail,
Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan, Ms. Shazeen
Abdullah and Mr. Mohsin Mumtaz,
Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli, Mr. Hasham Ahmad
Khan, Mr. Abad ur Rehman and Mr. Esa Jalil,
Mr. Mustafa Ramday,
Mr. Khalid Ishaq and Syeda Fatima Tanveer,
Mr. Ashar Elahi and Mr. Adnan Kazmi,
Chaudhary Muhammad Arshad,
Mr. Usman Nawaz,
Mr. Zafar Iqbal Kalanauri,
Mr. Waseem Ahmad Malik and Mr.
Muhammad Asif Butt,
Sheikh Anwaar ul Haq,
Hafiz Muhammad Kalim Ullah,
Mr. Faizan Munir Joyia,
Mr. Ahmad Kamal Khan,
Salman Akram Raja, Malik Ahsan, Ms. Atira
Akram and Mr. Arslan Riaz,
Mr. Zeeshan Nadeem,
Mr. Adil Aftab Kashmiri and Mr. Bilal
Kashmiri,
Mr. Kashif Hussain and Mr. Shahzad Ahmad
Cheema,
Mr. Asif ur Rehman,
Mr. Abdul Hameed Chohan and Chaudhary
Sohail Khurshid,
Mr. A.W. Butt,
Mr. Imran Mushtaq,
 2
WP No.129536/2018

Mr. Abid Hussain,

Dr. Zia Ullah Ranjha,
Chaudhary Muhammad Shakeel,
Mr. Afrasiab Mohal,
Mr. Muhammad Adeel Chaudhary
Mr. Muhammad Azam Zia,
Mr. Yasir Islam Chaudhary,
Mr. Imran Aziz Khan,
Ch. Abdul Rab and Mr. Umer Abdullah,
Mr. Kashif Ali Chaudhary and Ms. Shazia
Ashraf Khan,
Mr. Faisal Hanif, Advocate,
Mr. Faizan ul Haq Dar,
Syed Sajid Ali Bukhari and Mr. Abdul Latif,
Mr. Tahir Farooq,
Mr. Arslan Munir Joiya,
Mr. Waqar A. Khan,
Mr. Imran Mustafa,
Hafiz Mudassar Hassan Kamran,
Mian Asghar Ali,
Advocate for Federation of Pakistan
Respondents: Ms. Ambreen Moeen, Deputy Attorney
General for Pakistan along with Mr. Azmat
Hayat Khan Lodhi, Assistant Attorney General
for Pakistan.

Province of Punjab
Mr. Waqar Saeed Khan, Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab.
Local Government and Community
Development Department (Municipal
Corporations)
Mr. Khalid Jamil,
Mr. Muhammad Rafique Chaudhry,
Sardar Naeem Akbar Khan,
Chaudhary Asif Shahzad Sahi,
Barrister Chaudhary Saeed H. Nangra and Mr.
Zafar Iqbal Bhatti,
Ms. Samra Malik, Advocate

Cantonment Boards
Barrister Muhammad Umer Riaz, Mr. Haroon
Rashid, Mr. Waqas Umer Sial and Barrister
Bushra Saqib,
Sardar Balakh Sher Khan Khosa,
Mr. Naveed Akhtar Chaudhary,
 3
WP No.129536/2018

Rana Nasr Ullah Khan,

Mr. Muhammad Imran Haider Bhatti and Mr.
Muhammad Ali Sherazi,
Mian Haseeb ul Hassan and Mr. Salman
Ahmad,
Mrs. Samia Khalid, Mr. Zarak Zaman Khan
and Sheikh Nadeem Arshad,
Mr. Muhammad Anwar Chaudhary,
Chaudhary Muhammad Atiq, Chaudhary
Muhammad Umar and Mufi Ahtesham Uddin
Haider.
Malik Khurram Shahzad and Mr. Zulqarnain
Hammad.
Mr. Muhammad Arif Thothaal,

Parks and Horticulture Authority

Mr. Waqar A. Sheikh, Ms. Humaira Afzal and
Faisal G. Miran,
Mr. Abdur Rauf Sindhu,
Rana Muhammad Afzal Razzaq Khan,
Sardar M.S. Tahir,
Mian Abdul Qadoos, Rao Aurangzeb Rashid
and Muhammad Rafiq Shah

National Highway Authority

Malik Muhammad Jhenagir Aslam,

Defence Housing Authority

Mr. Altaf ur Rehman Khan and Mr. Ishfaq
Amir Hussain,

Mr. Mubeen Uddin Qazi, Advocate for private

Respondent No.5 in WP No.222831/18.
Mr. Muhammad Khalid Chaudhary, Advocate
for private Respondent No.9 in WP
No.203795/18.

Ayesha A. Malik J: This common judgment decides upon the

issues raised in the instant Petition along with connected Petitions, as
detailed in Schedule “A” appended with the judgment, as all Petitions
question the levy of advertisement fee by the Respondents.
2. The Petitioners before the Court are primarily banking
companies who have challenged the levy of advertisement fee as
 4
WP No.129536/2018

imposed by the various different Respondent authorities. The

Petitioners have been asked to pay advertisement fee for the
signboards affixed at their branches. In some cases the fee is being
charged for neon signs, stickers and other forms of signage, on the
windows of the branch, ATM cabins and elsewhere. Also before the
Court are different companies such as Bata Pakistan Limited, Punjab
Beverages, Agha Khan Hospital, TCS, Singer Pakistan, Coca Cola
Beverages and Raiz Bottlers who have also been levied advertisement
fee for the affixation of signboard at their office premises, shops and
hospitals along with neon signs and other materials, similar to the
Banks. One set of Petitioners before this Court are contractors who
specialize in the business of outdoor advertisement and install bill
boards and sky signs in various different cities of Punjab. They have
been charged advertisement fee for outdoor billboards and sky boards
and other forms of advertisement. Most of the Petitioners have also
impugned the demand notices issued by the Respondents for payment
of advertisement fee. The Respondent authorities before the Court are:
(i) Local Government(s);
(ii) Cantonment Boards;
(iii) Parks and Horticulture Authority (“PHA”);
(iv) Defence Housing Authority (“DHA”) and
(v) National Highway Authority (“NHA”).

3. So far as the Petitioners are concerned, the common argument

in all cases is that they are banking companies or corporate entities
who display their corporate information through signboards in
compliance with Section 22 of the Companies Act, 2017
(“Companies Act”) which requires the display of the name of the
company in a conspicuous position outside the registered office and
every office or place of business as well as the branch under the
Licensing Policy of the State Bank of Pakistan in terms of the BPRD
Circular 15 of 2007 dated 12.10.2007 (“SBP Policy”) which requires
the same for the Banks. These requirements are federal in nature and
 5
WP No.129536/2018

are mandatory, meaning thereby that the Petitioners are obligated to

place signboards at their place of business, hence cannot be charged a
fee for compliance with the federal law. Learned counsel for the
Petitioners argued that since the matter of placing signboards or
affixing the company name falls within the domain of the federation,
therefore provincial authorities cannot compel the Petitioners to
remove their boards nor can they levy a fee on the same. Reliance has
been placed on Bank Alfalah Limited v. Messrs Callmate Telips
Telecom Ltd. and 5 others (2016 CLD 1202) to urge the point that
State Bank of Pakistan Guidelines and Circulars are binding. Learned
counsel for the Petitioners also argued that the levy of advertisement
fee by its very definition is illegal because there is no advertisement
involved in so far as display of signboards is concerned and further
that there is no quid pro quo, hence the levy of advertisement fee is
illegal. In the context of the different authorities before the Court, the
case of the Petitioners is that they are not authorized under their
respective law to levy advertisement fee. The Petitioners have placed
reliance on Soneri Bank Limited v. Province of Punjab and others
(PLJ 2020 Lahore 239) (“Soneri Bank Case”) where the same
matter was raised and decided.
4. The issue before the Court is with respect to the levy of fee/
charges for the affixation of signboards displaying the name of the
Petitioner Banks or companies and in some cases with respect to
promotional or advertisement material pasted on the windows of the
relevant branch or corporate office. So far as the Petitioners who are
contractors engaged in the business of contracting for outdoor display,
the issue raised by them is whether the relevant Respondent authority
can levy advertisement fee for the purposes of billboards, sky boards
and other forms of display used by such contractors. The case of each
of the Respondent authority is taken up separately with specific
reference to their relevant law.
 6
WP No.129536/2018

Local Governments
5. Report and parawise comments have been filed by the
respective Municipal Corporations. Some of the Petitions are with
reference to the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”)
while others are with reference to the Punjab Local Government Act,
2019 (“Local Government Act”). The Respondents before the Court
represent various different Municipal Corporations in whose vicinity
the signboard has been affixed. The case of the Respondents is that in
terms of the powers under Section 115 of the 2013 Act and Section
156 of the Local Government Act, they are entitled to levy taxes and
fees. They argue that it is part of the authorized functions of the
Municipal Corporations to regulate the affixation of signboards and
advertisement boards except where it falls within the jurisdiction of
the PHA. Reliance is placed on Section 87(2) (i) and (g) of the 2013
Act. In this regard the Respondents have also relied upon letter dated
3.7.2020 issued by the Local Government and Community
Development Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore wherein it
is stated that the Local Government can regulate signboards and street
advertisement, however the respective PHAs continue to perform this
function in areas which do not fall within their domain. While relying
upon the Soneri Bank Case, the letter of 3.7.2020 requires the Director
General, PHA to settle the question of advertisement fee in any area
where there is an issue with respect to who can levy the fee, PHA or
the Local Government. Learned counsel argued that this letter shows
that the Respondent Municipal Corporations can levy advertisement
fee.
6. In terms of Section 156 of the Local Government Act, fee or tax
can be levied through a notification published in the official gazette,
meaning thereby that the Local Government can levy fees, rates, tolls
and rents provided the same has been approved and is notified in the
official gazette. Similar was the position under the 2013 Act where
 7
WP No.129536/2018

Section 115 also required that the fee be notified in the official
gazette. In the cases before the Court, it is admitted by the Respondent
Local Government that no notification has been issued to date by any
of the Municipal Corporations. In the absence of a notification as per
the requirement of Section 156 of the Local Government Act and
Section 115 of the 2013 Act, the Local Government cannot levy or
charge any fee for the purposes of signboards or advertisement fee
from the Petitioners. In this regard, it is noted that this issue has
already been decided in the Soneri Bank Case that the Local
Governments can only charge fee for the affixation of signboards or
advertisement fee provided it is duly notified. However there has been
no progress in the matter as no notifications have been issued. I am
informed by the learned Law Officer that some effort is being made to
regulate this issue, however he could not explain as to whether there
will be one single notification for all Municipal Corporations or
whether separate rates will be issued. Furthermore there is nothing on
the record which justifies non-issuance of notifications given the
substantive requirement of the law. It is further noted that so far as the
Banks and corporate entities are concerned, they are required under
federal law to affix their signboard on their premises, be it in their
ownership or rented premises, hence they should be exempt from any
fee to this extent as the provincial law cannot override the provisions
of a federal law. In this regard, the PHA has exempt banks and
corporate entities from any fee on signboards provided they comply
with the requirements of size and shape. Therefore any fee that is
charged by the Local Government pursuant to Section 156 of the
Local Government Act will be cognizant of the provisions of the
federate statute regarding banks and corporate entities to install their
signboards outside their premises as per the Companies Act and the
SBP Policy. Hence these Petitions against the Local Government
 8
WP No.129536/2018

are allowed as the Local Government has not issued any notification
for levy of advertisement fee.
Cantonment Boards
7. Report and parawise comments have been filed by the
Respondent Cantonment Board. The stated Respondent essentially
rely on Section 282 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (“Cantonment
Act”) which gives the power to make byelaws. Pursuant to this
Section byelaws have been issued regarding the pasting of billboards
and advertisements with respect to size, shape or style of name-
boards, sign boards and signposts, hence they argue that fee can be
levied. The Petitioners’ contention is that there is no power under the
Cantonment Act on the basis of which the Respondents seek to levy
advertisement fee. They have placed reliance on the judgment dated
20.5.2015 passed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil
Appeal No.1132/2007 titled Hyderabad Cantonment Board v. Raj
Kumar and others wherein the matter in issue has been decided,
consequent to which it is argued that the Respondent Cantonment
Board is not authorized under the Cantonment Act to levy
advertisement fee. They have also relied upon the Soneri Bank Case
wherein it is specifically held that with reference to Section 200 of the
Cantonment Act, the Cantonment Board has no authority to levy any
fee which is not contemplated by the said provision.
8. Section 282(3) of the Cantonment Act is reproduced hereunder:

282. Power to make bye-laws.- Subject to the provisions of this Act

and of the rules made thereunder, a [Board] may, in addition to any
bye-laws which it is empowered to make by any other provision of
this Act, make bye-laws to provide for all or any of the following
matters in the cantonment, namely:--

(3) the regulation of the collection and recovery of taxes,

tolls and fees under this Act and the refund of taxes;

At the very outset, it is noted that this power is essentially the power
to make byelaws which is subject to the provisions of the Act. Hence
 9
WP No.129536/2018

the power to make rules is dependent on specific power given to the

Board under the Cantonment Act. The Section which authorizes the
Cantonment Board to levy any fee is Section 200 of the Cantonment
Act which reads as follows:

200. Levy of stallages, rents and fees. A [Board] may

(a) charge for the occupation or use of any stall, shop, standing,
shed or pen in a public market, or public slaughter-house, or
for the right to expose goods for sale in a public market, or for
weighing or measuring goods sold therein, or for the right to
slaughter animals in any public slaughter-house, such stallages,
rents and fees as it thins fit; or
(b) with the sanction of the [Competent Authority], farm the
stallages, rents and fees leviable as aforesaid or any portion
thereof for any period not exceeding one year at a time; or
(c) put up to public auction, or with the sanction of the [Competent
Authority], dispose of by private sale, the privilege of
occupying or using any stall, shop, standing, shed or pen in a
public market or public slaughter-house for such term ad on
such conditions as it thinks fit.

Section 200 of the Cantonment Act was interpreted by the august

Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment dated 20.5.2015 passed by
the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No.1132/2007
(supra) concluded that the a bare perusal of Section 200 of the
Cantonment Act is limited for levying of stallages rent and fee for
providing stall, shop, standing shed, pen and for other defined
commercial activities on the vendors dealing in goods and for the
slaughter of animals in public market or public slaughter houses
respectively and that too subject to sanction by the competent
authority. In the case before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan the
issue was of parking fee and the Court concluded that parking fee is
not envisioned under the referred provision. Therefore the
Cantonment Board has no authority to enlarge the scope of the
charging section and include the subject of parking fee for the
purposes of levying fee. The same Section was interpreted by this
Court in the Soneri Bank Case wherein it was held that the
Cantonment Board has no authority to levy fee in relation to the
 10
WP No.129536/2018

boards installed by the petitioners at their offices/branches. The

Respondents rely upon the order of this Court dated 14.3.2018 passed
by a learned Division Bench of this Court in ICA No.62/2015 titled
Allied Bank Limited v. Province of Punjab etc. wherein the Court
remanded the matter with the consent of the parties to the Board for
due consideration. In the order dated 7.10.2015 passed by the august
Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No.796/2015 titled Habib
Bank Limited Islamabad v. Federation of Pakistan through Secy M/o
Defence, Islamabad etc. the Court referred the matter to the learned
Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench for the
purposes of deciding the same along with other matters pending there.
The cases were decided by the Division Bench in ICA No.62/2015
wherein the Court on the basis of a consent order decided that they
would not charge any advertisement fee on the board affixed on a
branch and further that if the respondents intend to charge
advertisement fee from the banks for reasons that its board contains
advertisement material in violation of the specified shape, it can do so
after passing an assessment order in writing. This case did not
consider the authority of the Cantonment Board to levy advertisement
fee and was decided on the basis of the statement made in the Habib
Bank Case (supra) before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The
Respondents also rely on order dated 16.3.2018 passed by this Court
in ICA No.50/2015 titled M/s Haidri Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. v. City
District Government, Rawalpindi through D.C.O. etc. and order dated
10.11.2020 passed by this Court in ICA No.217/2016 titled Lahore
Cantonment Board v. Allied Bank Limited etc. along with several
other cases decided on the same terms. However, in this regard, it is
noted that these orders are of no help to the Respondent Cantonment
Board as the matter in issue essentially is with respect to the authority
of the Cantonment Board to levy advertisement fee which matter has
been decided by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. Therefore the
 11
WP No.129536/2018

Cantonment Board has no authority to levy fee in relation to the

boards installed by the Petitioners at their offices/branches and
reliance on Section 282 of the Cantonment Act is misconceived.
9. Under the circumstances, all the Petitions challenging the levy
of advertisement fee by the Cantonment Board are allowed.
Parks and Horticulture Authority
10. There are 33 Petitions against the PHA filed by different banks
with reference to signboards, glass flex, neon signs, window
advertisement, LED etc. as well as corporate entities such as Punjab
Beverages Company Private Limited, Borjan (Private) Limited, Sign-
O-Plus Namoos Advertisement Company, Coca Cola Beverages,
Faisalabad Outdoor Advertising Association for payment of
advertisement fee against display of their signboards as well as for
advertisement on billboards, signboards, sky signs and other forms of
advertisement. Some Petitioners have challenged the registration for
being beyond the scope of the PHA Act.
11. Report and parawise comments have been filed by the
Respondent PHA. The Respondents argue that PHA has been created
under Section 3(2) of the Parks and Horticulture Authority Act, 2012
(“PHA Act”) and it regulates the installation of billboards, sky signs
and outdoor advertisements under Section 4(c) of the PHA Act. Also
argued that the Petitioners are bound to seek permission of PHA
before installation of billboards, sky signs and to bring already
existing boards in conformity with provisions of the PHA Act.
Therefore the counsel argued the Petitioners are bound to fulfil the
legal formalities and deposit the fee as approved by the Government
under Section 12(8) of the PHA Act.
12. PHA is established under Section 3 of the PHA Act. The
preamble of the PHA Act provides for the establishment of Parks and
Horticulture Authority in the Punjab for the regulation, development
and maintenance of public parks, green belts and green areas in the
 12
WP No.129536/2018

Punjab; regulation of billboards, sky signs and outdoor

advertisements; to promote open and unrestricted views of the Punjab
and to provide for the connected matters. Section 4 of the PHA Act
provides for the powers and functions of the Authority to regulate the
installation of billboards, sky signs, outdoor advertisements on private
or public property. Section 12 of the PHA Act deals with installation
of billboards, sky signs and outdoor advertisements and Section 12(8)
allows the PHA to levy charges and fees for installation of billboards,
sky signs or outdoor advertisement as per the government approval.
The prohibitions are contained in Section 21 of the PHA Act whereby
Section 21(4) provides that the permission of the Authority is
mandatory for any installation or exhibit of advertisement material on
any property or contain advertisement material or fall under the
category of outdoor advertisement. The definition of advertisement is
provided in Section 2(b) of the PHA Act, which means commercially
displayed or installed signage, board, screen, streamer, poster, banner
or any other thing placed, painted, pasted or installed on public or
private property that is visible from a public place and is intended to
inform the reader of the availability of a service, product or promoters
of a business. Section 30 of the PHA Act also provides the power to
make rules. In terms of the Parks and Horticulture Authority Outdoor
Advertisement Regulations, 2017 (“Regulations”), the Respondents
have exempted banks and other companies from displaying their
signage in compliance with Companies Act and the SBP Policy,
however with respect to other outdoor advertisement, they are liable
to pay fee. Accordingly advertisement fee is only levied on any
signboards installed by the banks which exceed the permissible
measurement prescribed by the Regulations.
13. In view of the aforesaid to the extent of Banks and corporate
entities who display their name as per the requirements of the
Companies Act and the SBP Policy, in terms of the Regulations no fee
 13
WP No.129536/2018

should be charged. However if the display contains any advertisement

or is contrary to the Regulations or is with reference to the outdoor
advertisement, fee can be levied. So far as the contractors are
concerned, since they are involved in the business of outdoor
advertisement, they are liable to pay fee as per the PHA Act read with
the Regulations. Consequently the Petitions of the Banks and
corporate entites are disposed of to the extent of signboard which
are in compliance with the Companies Act and the SBP Policy.
However if they are involved in any advertisement, they are liable to
pay as per the PHA Act and Regulations whereas the Petitions of the
contractors are dismissed.
National Highway Authority
14. There are three Petitions against the NHA being WP
Nos.201485/18, 256585/18 filed by Banks and WP No.22283/18 filed
by Lotte Akhtar Beverages (Private) Limited (formerly Riaz Bottlers
Private Limited), which is engaged in the business of manufacturing
of carbonated beverages under various different brand names that is
Pepsi Cola, Rave, Seven Up, Miranda, Mountain Dew, Sting and
purified water under the brand name Aquafina. So far as the Banks
are concerned, they have impugned the demand raised by the
Respondent NHA for payment of advertisement fee against display of
their signboards whereas the Petitioner Lotte Akhtar Beverages
(Private) Limited has impugned the demand raised for rental charges
against the advertisement displayed by the Petitioner.
15. In terms of the report and parawise comments filed and the
arguments made, NHA is empowered to levy advertisement fee under
the National Highway Authority Act, 1991 (“NHA Act”). Learned
counsel for the Respondent NHA has relied upon Section 10 of the
NHA Act along with National Highways and Strategic Roads Control
Rules, 1998 (“1998 Rules”) which basically prescribes the procedure
on the basis of which the Respondents can levy advertisement fee.
 14
WP No.129536/2018

Learned counsel stated that NHA has awarded concession for

advertisement and promotional displays on Sahiwal to Lahore Section
for a period of two years with respect to advertisement and
promotional displays, hence the Petitioners are bound to pay the same.
Section 10(2)(vi) of the NHA Act empowers the authority to enter
into contracts and thereby levy license fee on the terms of the
contract. Learned counsel stated that the Petitioners are therefore
liable to pay advertisement fee in terms of the NHA Act as well as
1998 Rules.
16. NHA is established under Section 3 of the NHA Act. The
preamble of the NHA Act provides its mandate to establish a National
Highway Authority for planning, development, operation and
maintenance of National Highways and strategic roads and to provide
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 10 of
the NHA Act provides for the powers and duties of the Authority, in
terms of which the Authority may take such measures and exercise
such powers as it considers necessary or expedient for carrying out the
purposes of the Act. Section 10(2)(vii) of the NHA Act provides for
the levy, collect or cause to be collected tolls on national highways,
strategic roads and such other roads as may be entrusted to it and
bridges thereon. This means that NHA can levy and collect tolls on
the national highways and strategic roads. Section 10(2)(viii) is with
reference to license facilities on roads under its control and such terms
as it deems fit. NHA has also relied upon the 1998 Rules and
Regulations which are pursuant to Section 31 and 32 of the NHA Act.
On the basis of the provisions of the NHA Act, it appears that the
NHA is authorized to levy and collect toll on the national highways as
well as strategic, bridges, roads and such other rates which are
entrusted to it. Therefore there is no specific power to levy
advertisement fee or charges of any kind with respect to the signage or
advertisement or promotional material. Section 10(2)(viii) of the NHA
 15
WP No.129536/2018

Act gives the Respondent NHA the authority to enter into a license
agreement with respect to roads under its control on the terms it
deems fit. These license agreements can contain terms for
advertisement and promotional material, for which the Respondents
have relied upon concession agreements entered in terms thereof.
However there is no concession agreement placed on the file with
respect to Soneri Bank Limited and Bank of Punjab or Lotte Akhtar
Beverages (Private) Limited. In this regard, it is clarified that the
Respondents cannot charge advertisement fee for any signage that has
been affixed on the business premises of the Banks in terms of their
requirement under the Companies Act and the SBP Policy. Although
it is argued that it is with reference to ATM cabins and other material,
there is nothing on the file which shows any concession agreement or
license agreement to charge advertisement fee. So far as Petitioner in
WP No.22283/2018 is concerned, nothing has been appended with the
Petition or the reply to show that there was any license agreement
between the parties for the purposes of displaying promotional
material.
17. In view of the aforesaid, these Petitions are disposed of as there
is no information provided by the Petitioners with reference to what
they are being charged for and whether there is any license agreement
between the Petitioners and the NHA. The NHA cannot levy
advertisement fee except if it has entered into a license agreement
with respect to advertisement and promotional material, hence it
should consider the same before issuance of any demand.
Defence Housing Authority
18. There are four Petitions against the DHA being WP
Nos.12680/16, 173617/18, 77072/19, 73006/19 filed by the Banks
wherein they have impugned notices issued by Respondent DHA for
installation of vinyl/sticking papers by the Petitioners.
 16
WP No.129536/2018

19. In terms of the report and parawise comments filed and the
arguments made, DHA is authorized to levy all sorts of charges in
terms of Section 7(2)(e) read with Section 8 of the Defence Housing
Authority Lahore Order, 2002 (“DHA Order”) read with DHA
Municipal Rules, 2013 (“DHA Rules”) which provides under Rule 35
that the authority can regulate signboards and advertisements and no
person shall display any signage except with the permission of the
authority. The Respondents have also relied upon DHA License
Regulations, 2013 (“DHA Regulations”) and the Signage Byelaws.
Learned counsel argued that the levy of advertisement fee is pursuant
to the aforementioned provisions and it is carried out in terms of the
DHA Rules and DHA Regulations. So far as the signage boards are
concerned, the Petitioners are required to be complied with the DHA
Rules, DHA Regulations as well as Signage Byelaws.
20. DHA is established under Section 3 of the DHA Order. Section
7 of the DHA Order provides for the powers, duties and functions of
Executive Board and in terms of Section 7(e) the Board can impose,
recover, alter, vary or enhance development charges, installments,
cost of apartments, housing units of scheme, commercial projects and
transfer fees and other charges in respect of any property, plot or
project within the area of the Authority. Section 8 provides for the
powers of the Executive Board to raise funds in terms of which they
can levy charges as per the rules. The rule making power is under
Section 22 of the DHA Order and the power to make regulations is
under Section 23. Rule 35 of the DHA Rules provides that signboards
and advertisements are allowed based on the permission given by the
authority and under the DHA Regulations Signage Byelaws have been
made which provides for the requirements with respect to signboards
and other promotional and advertisement material. Therefore in terms
of the DHA Order read with DHA Rues read with the Signage
Byelaws, DHA can impose charges with respect to advertisement and
 17
WP No.129536/2018

promotional material, billboards, signboards and specifically with

respect to companies signboards installed on the front side of the shop
or the office. As per the Signage Byelaws, all office signboards are to
be installed as per the specifications given in the Byelaws. Under the
circumstances, DHA is competent to levy charges for signboards and
other advertisement and promotional material as per DHA Rules and
Signage Byelaws.
21. The only issue is whether the DHA can levy charges for placing
signboards on the office premises of the Petitioners who are Banks
and corporate entities in compliance with the Companies Act and the
SBP Policy. In this regard, PHA had stated before the Court that to the
extent of one signboard, they have exempt payment of advertisement
fee provided that the signboard is in compliance with the requirements
of the PHA Regulations, no such statement has been made by the
DHA. In this regard, the DHA should also consider the same. Since
there is no information before the Court with respect to the quantum
of fee charged for signboards or whether there is any promotional
material on the signboards, the DHA can look into the matter. In this
regard, it is noted that the Petitioners have impugned demand notices
which are with respect to pasting vinyl/sticking papers which is on the
glass of the branches and is specifically for advertisement purposes.
Hence the Petitioners are liable to pay the same as it falls within the
domain of the DHA. Hence these Petitions against the DHA are
dismissed.
22. In view of the aforesaid for the purposes of clarity it is declared
that:
(i) to the extent of the Respondent Local Government, they
are authorized under Section 156 of the Local
Government Act to levy taxes and fees provided they are
duly notified in the official gazette;
 18
WP No.129536/2018

(ii) the Respondent Cantonment Board does not have power

to levy any kind of advertisement fee or charge fees for
signboards;
(iii) the Respondent NHA is not authorized to levy
advertisement fee;
(iv) the Respondent PHA is authorized to levy charges and
for advertisement and signboards;
(v) the DHA is competent to levy charges for advertisement
and signboards;
(vi) banks and corporate entities are entitled to install
signboard/signage in compliance with the Companies Act
and the SBP Policy without charge of fee subject to any
rules or regulations on size, shape and provided it does
not contain any advertisement material.

(AYESHA A.MALIK)
JUDGE

Approved for Reporting

JUDGE

Allah Bakhsh*