1983 PLP 1137 (CLC)

Karamat Nazir Bhindari for Respondent No.

1. Sardar Sami Hayat for Respondents Nos. 2 to

4. Dates of hearing : 10th and 16th December, 1980. The petitioners are Transporters. Respondent No. 1 is the Regional Transport Authority, Multan, while the remaining three respondents are the Municipal Committee, Deepalpur, the Town Committee, Hujra Shah Muqim, and the Town Committee, Haveli Wasawayala, District Sahiwal. The three respondent Committees have provided within their respective local limits bus‑stands for the benefit of the public and the Transporters alike. The Regional Transport Authority being generally interested in maintaining and regulating the public transport facility, fixed the fee to be paid by the Transporters to the local authorities for the facility of the bus‑stand at the rate of Rs. 2 per bus per trip. Until recently, the rate was only rupee one per bus per trip Being aggrieved by the latest fixation of fee by the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the authority of the Regional Transport Authority, respondent No. 1 to prescribe the fee and also to challenge the authority of the three respondent local Committees to levy and collect it. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the local authorities have no power under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance to impose any tax unilaterally without consulting or associating the parties to be affected thereby. He also contends that the order of the Regional Trans port Authority, that is, respondent No. 1 is also ultra vires the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance and the rules framed there under. But it is to be noted that, under section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance in general and under clause (f) of subsection (2) of the said section in particular, the Government has the power to make rules to provide for the maintenance and management of parking place and stands and the fee, if any, which may be charged for their use. Under this authority, the Government has framed the West Pakistan Motor Vehicle: Rules, 1969. Rule 253 thereof deals with the bus‑stands which have been classified there under into four categories, namely,‑ Class (A) Class (B) Class (C) and Class (D) The bus stands in question fall under Class (C) and sub‑rule (5) of rules 253 has~laid down that the Regional Transport Authority shall from time to time fix the fee or the maximum fee payable at every stand of Class (A), (B) and (C). It is thus clear that the Regional Transport Authority has the power may, it is under a legal obligation either to fix the fee or prescribe a maximum of the fee to be payable at every stand of Class (A), (B) or (C). The fore, the recent fixation of the fee by the Regional Transport Authority a the rate of Rs. 2 per bus trip cannot be said to be without legal authority or lacking in legal effect.

4. The petitioners appear to have been provoked by the enhance ment of the fee on account of the fact that no amenities required under the law or the rules have been provided at the bus‑stands. A cursory glance into the record of (he Regional Transport Authority product before the Court has. indicated that the management of the bus‑stands by the local authorities or their maintenance leaves much to be desired. It is the duty of the local authorities to provide all necessary facilities and amenities at the bus stands at least as prescribed under the Motor Vehicle Rules Nos. 256 and

257. It is also the duty of the Regional Transport Authority to ensure the observance of these rules by the local authority. But merely because adequate facilities have not been provided to the satisfaction of all concern ed, the Regional Transport Authority cannot be prevented from prescribe bring the fee and the local authorities from collection it. The aggrieved members of the public and the aggrieved Transporters will have to see redress of their grievance from the Government which is supposed to over see the functioning of the Regional Transport Authority as well as the local bodies. The local authorities being elected bodies, they are also answerable to the public for their failure to discharge their legal obligations,

5. Therefore, there is no good ground on which this Court can inter fere with the impugned order in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.. But in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. M. Y. H. _ ‑