KARACHI, May 1: Three concerns, whose writ petitions against the levy of vending and permit fee on methanol by the Sindh government were allowed by the Sindh High Court recently, have sued the provincial excise department for contempt.
The petitioners said a division bench had passed strictures against government departments for issuing notifications thoughtlessly yet the excise department was demanding fee in violation of the court order.
The petitions against the fee were moved by manufacturers of formaldehyde and formaldehyde-based products who use methanol as a base ingredient. The division bench had held that methanol could not be treated as ‘liquor’ chargeable with vending and permit fees under the Sindh Abkari Act, 1878. The imposition was estimated to fetch Rs 1,000 million to the public exchequer.
In three contempt petitions filed on behalf of three petitioner concerns, Advocate Nasir Maqsood submitted that the excise secretary and other officials of the excise and taxation department were not giving effect to the SHC ruling.
They were, in fact, violating the order by demanding the fees declared non-recoverable by the court. He called for the prosecution of the alleged contemners.
JUDGMENT RESERVED: Justice Mushir Alam of the Sindh High Court reserved judgment on Wednesday on a suit instituted by a prominent psychiatrist against two foreign airlines and travel-related services of a foreign bank for not allowing him to board a plane despite a confirmed seat.
Dr S. Haroon Ahmed stated in his plaint that he was to fly from Karachi to Boston, US, for his treatment via Dubai and London and had booked two seats, including one for his son, through the travel-related services of a foreign bank.
He was to travel by a Gulf airline from Karachi to Dubai and by a British airline from Dubai to Boston. The seats were confirmed and reconfirmed, but he was not allowed to board the plane at the Quaid-i-Azam International Airport, Karachi, when he reported at the airline’s counter on April 14, 1999, on the pretext that there was no reservation for him and that the seats were not confirmed 72 hours prior to the flight.
He said there was an unusual rush of VIPs due to a trade fair and Sharjah Cup cricket, but according to his information, the flight was still short of five passengers.
The plaintiff said his condition aggravated because of his inability to keep the appointment with a leading Boston consultant. He suffered torture and financial loss and had to incur additional expenses to go to the US. He claimed damages amounting to Rs 10 million from the two airlines and the bank severally and jointly.
Appearing for the bank on the last day of hearing, Advocate Dara S. Shaikh, submitted that airlines do indulge in ‘overbooking’ to offset the effect of ‘no-shows’. However, a travel agency was not responsible if an airline did not discharge its obligation to carry a passenger booked on a particular flight.
A confirmed ticket or seat should not require reconfirmation but most airlines reserved the right to offload passengers in the terms and conditions printed on their tickets.
His client had performed its part of the contract by arranging confirmed seats for the plaintiff and his son.
The bank was not issued any notice of the suit for damages and was unduly impleaded as a defendant subsequently, he argued.