1987 PLP 180 (SCMR)

S.A NUSRAT, J.‑‑This order will dispose of the above petitions which arise out of a common judgment of the Lahore High Court passed on Intra‑Court Appeals of the respondents which were allowed and the judgment dated 14‑1‑1986 dismissing respondents' writ petitions was set aside. 2. The Punjab Road Transport Board, which was established by the Punjab Government under the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 was dissolved by a notification dated 9‑5‑1985 issued by the Governor of the Punjab and all its business, properties and assets etc. were vested in the Government. The officers and employees of the Board were placed in a surplus pool to be maintained by the Government of the Punjab for the purpose of payment of pay till their adjustment in other organizations considered suitable by the Government. The respondent claiming themselves to be adversely affected in the matter, as shown in the petitions, brought Constitutional Petitions in the High Court which were dismissed Ly a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 14‑1‑1986. The respondents thereupon filed Intra‑Court Appeals challenging the said order, which were allowed as per impugned judgment. 3. By the impugned judgment the above notification dated 9‑5‑1985 has been declared to be illegal and all subsequent consequential notifications, orders including the orders of retirement of Akbar Hussain, Ch. Sanaullah, Syed Muhammad Munir Gilani and Ghulam Mustafa and the order of termination of services of Dr. Fayyaz Ahmed and Muhammad Afzal Kahut have been likewise declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to examine the following contentions; (i) Whether section 70 of Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which enables the Government to establish a Road Transport (Corporate Body) does not confer similar power on the Government to dissolve/ abolish the same Board inasmuch as the section does not impose any obligation on the Government, but merely enables it to establish such a Board. (ii) Whether the learned High Court has correctly decided that once the Government establishes a corporate institution (the Board) through its executive fiat under an enabling provision of the Statute; it cannot bring the Corporation to an end in the like manner, through another executive fiat. (iii) Whether a Board (Corporate Institution) of the type contemplated by section 70 would, like a corporate aggregate, not come to an end when the members constituting the Board are no longer in existence. 5.The interim stay already granted by this Court on 9‑7‑1986 shall continue till the disposal of the appeals. M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.