1998 PLP 1414 (CLC)

(2)

(3) Save as expressly provided in this Ordinance, no Court or other authority shall have jurisdiction:‑‑‑ (a) To entertain or adjudicate upon any matter which the Provincial or a Regional Transport Authority or the prescribed authority is empowered by this Ordinance to dispose of or to determine; or (b) To question the legality of anything done under this Ordinance by or at the instance of the Provincial or a Regional Transport Authority or the prescribed authority. (4) No Court or other authority shall be competent to grant an injunction or other order in relation to any proceedings before the Provincial or a Regional Transport Authority or the prescribed authority under this Ordinance, or anything done or intended to be done by or at the instance of any such authority under this Ordinance.

6. While referring to the policy instructions as contained in letter Annexure ' H' he argued that these instructions have no legal force and cannot override the Statute and relied upon The United Netherlands Navigation Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax South Zone, Karachi (PLD 1965 SC 412) and Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. and another v. Sindh Employees Social Security Institution (PLD 1977 SC 197).

7. On merits he submitted that in the instant case M.C. Bahawalnagar issued N.O.C. on 6‑12‑1994 and received its fee for N.O.C. on 26‑2‑1995, that allegation of exercising political influence hardly stands to reason as the order, dated 23‑4‑1995 Annexure ' B' was passed during the tenure of previous Chief Minister and it is due to this reason that respondent No.2 had to seek the assistance of this Court by filing Writ Petition No.4237 of 1997 and obtaining order, dated 14‑10‑1997. Again the petitioner challenged the N.O.C., dated 28‑2‑1997 issued in favour of respondent No.2 vide Writ Petition No.4258 of 1997 which was disposed of vide order, dated 20‑10‑1997. He asserted that petitioner has no locus standi to initiate these proceedings as he is neither a licencee of ' D' Class Stand nor owner of any Transport Vehicle. He, thus, prayed that writ petition be dismissed.

8. Admittedly order, dated 24‑11‑1997, subject‑matter of this writ petition, has been passed by respondent No. l in exercise of powers vested in it vide Rule 263(3) of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 which reads as follows:

263. Company stands.‑‑‑(1) Orders permitting a place to be used as stand of Class D shall be in Form Stand D and shall specify clearly the area which may be so used. (2) Save with the special permission of the Regional Transport Authority no such order shall be made unless the person or company applying to use the place as a stand holds permits, being permits in the name of the person or company making the application, for not less than eight transport vehicles. (3) Before giving permission for the establishment of any stand of Class D, the Regional Transport Authority shall satisfy that the proposed site is not in such a location as would give the user an undue advantage over the owners of stages operating in competition with him from the general stand or stands. (4) No vehicles shall be admitted to any stand of Class D other than vehicles in respect of which a permit is held by the person or company in whose name the stand has been sanctioned, together with any vehicles which may have been specially mentioned in the Regional Transport Authority's order as entitled to use the stand. An appeal against such order is provided under Rule 267 which reads as follows:‑‑‑

267. Appellate authority. ‑‑‑(I) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Regional Transport Authority sanctioning the establishment of a stand or revoking or modifying an order permitting the establishment or a stand, may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, appeal, to the appellate authority as prescribed in rule 96, whose orders thereon shall be final and conclusive. (2) All orders by a Regional Transport Authority permitting any place to be used for the loading unloading or halting of motor vehicles used for carriage of goods for hire or rewards, on revoking or modifying any ‑such order, shall be appealable to the appellate authority as prescribed in Rule 96, whose orders thereon shall be final and conclusive. (3) The appellate authority, before passing an order under sub‑rule (1) or sub‑rule (2), as the case may be, shall give the appellant or any other person affected by the order, opportunity of being heard. There is no cavil to this preposition that no appeal against impugned order, dated 24‑11‑1997 as provided under Rule 267 (ibid), has been preferred by the petitioner and similarly no jurisdictional defect has been pointed out in the impugned order, so even if it is assumed that decision on a question of fact or law is not correct, it does not render without lawful authority. Thus, on both these scores, instant writ petition is not maintainable.

9. Again, the legislature in its wisdom has excluded the jurisdiction of any Court or authority to adjudicate upon any matter which falls within the ambit of Provincial or Regional Transport Authority as stipulated under subsections (3) and (4) of section 66 of Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965. There is no doubt that this Court has ample powers to strike down any order provided the same has been passed with mala fide intention and in excess of jurisdiction vested in the authority passing the same. No such plea has either been raised in the petition or agitated at the time of addressing arguments. Thus, even on this score the impugned order does not suffer from any inherent defect.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also challenged the creation of D' Class Wagon Stand on the ground that its creation is against the departmental instructions contained in Annexure 'H', dated 25‑1‑1997. A perusal of letter Annexure ' H' shows that these instructions have not taken away the powers of Regional Transport Authority of sanctioning D' class stand, but has simply provided guide lines for passing such orders. The most important condition to be kept in mind while granting such ' D' class stand is that flow of traffic be not hampered. The record shows that before passing impugned order, dated 24‑11‑1997, respondent No.l obtained N.O.Cs. of Assistant Commissioner Bahawalnagar, dated 21‑8‑1997, Sub‑Divisional Officer 1st Machinery Operation Sub‑Division Bahawalnagar, dated 10‑12‑1997, Pakistan Telecommunication Unity, dated 31‑10‑1997 and District Administration Bahawalnagar. Thus, even the instructions contained in letter, dated 25‑1‑1997 have been complied with by the issuing authority i.e., respondent No. 1.

11. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order, dated 24‑11‑1997 has been passed in accordance with law by respondent No. l in exercise of powers vested in it. There is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. A.A./S‑188/L Petition dismissed