2000 PLP 1652 (MLD)

Tariq Shamim for Petitioners. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner has filed an application before respondent No.2 for sanction of "D" Class Stand Licence at Ravi Road near Baba Chhatriwala, Lahore but he did not decide the same as is evident from the letter of Government of the Punjab Transport Department dated 22‑11‑1997 that the application of the petitioner was sent to respondent No.2 for consideration and to take action in accordance with law and submit report but the respondent No.2 did not decide the application of the petitioner and the petitioners were constrained by the circumstances to approach the Chief Executive of the Province. The Director of Chief Minister Secretariat sent the application of the petitioners to the Secretary Transport, with the remarks "that he should look into it and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with policy‑rules". Respondents failed to take any action on his application. He further stated that Government has made a policy decision on 24‑4‑1998 to the following effect:‑‑ 'Instructions of the Government regarding determination of Prohibited Zone for sanction of 'D' Class Stand in the urban area of (Municipal Limits), Lahore and report of the Committee constituted for the purpose was considered by the Authority at length. The Authority decided that no fresh application regarding sanction of 'D' Class Stand in the urban area/Municipal Limits of Lahore city will be considered till further orders. However, the cases which are already under process will be considered on merit as per rules." Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it is clearly revealed from the policy decision that the cases which are already under process will be considered on merits as per rules. He further stated that instead of deciding the application of the petitioner, respondent No.1 alongwith Illaqa Magistrate demolished the construction of the petitioner at 11‑00 a.m. without any decision in violation of the rules. Hence the petitioners filed this writ petition with the prayer that respondents be directed to immediately look into and decide the application of the petitioners on merits as is envisaged/given in the meeting of 24‑4‑1998 held by Regional Transport Authority. Other prayer of the petitioner is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedies to agitate the matter before the competent Authority/competent Court as the same relates to the factual controversy. Anyiowiu is inherent right of the petitioner that his application must be ` decided by respondent No.2 in accordance with law. His application is pending adjudication before him prior to the policy decision dated p, 24‑4‑1998. It is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to redress the grievance of the citizens as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution with fear, favour and nepotism. Even otherwise the honourable Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for 'the public functionaries to act within the framework of Constitution and law in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC

530. Let a copy of the writ petition be sent to respondent No.2 who is directed to decide the application of the petitioners preferably within 15 days after receiving the order of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of the writ petition to the learned Additional Advocate‑General who shall send the same to respondent No.2' for necessary action and compliance.

2. With these observations, the‑ writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./D‑3/L Order accordingly.