The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Friday directed the Karachi mayor to submit details of the functioning of schools and hospitals working under the control of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) as it heard a petition of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) leader against the collection of the municipal utility charges and taxes (MUCT) through K-Electric (KE) bills.
The high court issued notices to the KMC, local government secretary and others and called their comments.
The mayor was directed to submit details of staff working in the schools under the KMC and the number of students enrolled there on the next hearing.
The leader of the opposition in the KMC City Council, Saifuddin Advocate of the JI, had submitted in the petition that the SHC had earlier directed the KMC to conclude an exercise with regard to reviewing its agreement with the KE for the collection of municipal utility tax through the power bills by constituting a committee to deliberate on the issue and presenting the agreement before the City Council for approval.
The JI leader had submitted that the mayor had assured the high court that a committee of City Council members would be constituted on the matter to discuss the matter before the agreement was tabled before the council.
He had submitted that the mayor had also undertaken before the high court that the KE would not charge anything other than service charges and that the consumers of up to 300 units would not be charged any tax.
The petitioner’s counsel, Usman Farooq, submitted that despite undertakings before the SHC, the mayor had not complied with the court orders and outsourced the collection of MUCT to the KE.
The SHC was informed that the mayor had bypassed the process of consultation with the council members, excluded the opposition parties from the decision-making process and acted in a manner that undermined the democratic functioning of KMC.
The JI leader’s counsel stated that the inclusion of MUCT in electricity bills, without providing any clarity or public awareness regarding the basis and calculation of these charges, reflected a lack of accountability to the actions of the KMC.
He submitted that the citizens of Karachi were entitled to know how their municipal taxes were determined, what services they were paying for, and how these funds would be utilised, and the failure of the mayor to ensure this transparency not only eroded public trust but also constituted a violation of the fundamental principles of good governance.
The counsel submitted that arbitrary imposition of MUCT without proper justification or public endorsement was an overreach of municipal authority that must be addressed by the high court to safeguard the rights of the residents of Karachi.
He submitted that the process leading to the imposition of MUCT through the KE’s electricity bills had been marked by a complete lack of transparency and accountability. He said that respondents had failed to provide any justification for the charges, disclose the terms of agreement between the KMC and KE, or present the agreement before the KMC City Council for approval.
He said that actions of the KMC in outsourcing the MUCT collection to the KE violated the provisions of the Sindh Local Government Act 2013 as the sections 96 and 100 of the Act provided specific guidelines for the imposition and collection of municipal taxes, which included the requirements of a proper notification, public consultation and approval by the City Council.
He said the imposition of MUCT through the KE bills discriminated against the citizens of Karachi, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds who were already burdened by high utility costs.
He submitted that arbitrary and blanket imposition of these charges without considering the financial status or consumption patterns of different segments of society was a violation of the constitutional principle of equality before the law.
The high court was requested to declare the imposition of MUCT by the KMC to be illegal and also decree that the inclusion of MUCT in the electricity bills, which were tied to electricity consumption, was illegal and unconstitutional.
