1995 PLP 701 (CLC)
DIR FLYING COACH COMPANY‑‑‑Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DIR and others‑‑‑Defendants/Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 701 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J |
| Parties | DIR FLYING COACH COMPANY‑‑‑Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DIR and others‑‑‑Defendants/Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 701 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 701 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 701 (CLC) (DIR FLYING COACH COMPANY‑‑‑Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DIR and others‑‑‑Defendants/Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Maabood Khattak for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑R. 263‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXIX, Rr. 1. 2 & S. 115‑‑‑Plaintiffs were running coach stand‑‑ Regional Transport Authority issuing licence to respondent to open another stand of Coaches in the same vicinity‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiffs' application for grant of temporary injunction was turned down by Courts below‑‑‑Secretary, Transport Authority could permit such stand even if conditions specified in 8.263, West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 were not fulfilled‑‑ Permission to open another stand by Secretary, Regional Transport Authority thus, did not suffer from any illegality‑‑‑Plaintiffs' plea that introduction of second coach stand would cause them financial loss, would not help them as their daily traffic and revenue concerning such traffic and loss sustained thereby could conveniently be measured in terms of money‑‑‑Where impugned act would occasion some monetary loss to a party, merely because that party's monopoly was broken by new business concern, same would cause no irreparable loss to that party and in fact would result in healthy competition‑‑ Element of inconvenience was also missing from the standpoint taken by plaintiffs‑‑‑Opening of new coach stand would not cause any inconvenience to plaintiffs except some financial loss‑‑‑Plaintiffs were thus, not entitled to temporary injunction‑‑‑Concurrent finding of Courts below, therefore; were not susceptible to interference in revisional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Maabood Khattak for Petitioner. The petitioners, Malik Muhammad Zeb etc. were running a Flying Coach Stand at Timargara as well as Dir Secretary; Regional Transport Authority, Malakand Division on 28‑6‑1994 issued a licence to Abdul Latif etc. to open another stand of the Flying Coaches at Timargara in the main Chowk. This has aggrieved Malik Muhammad Zeb etc. of Dir Flying Coach Service who brought a suit in which the temporary injunction was refused to them by both the Courts below and hence this revision. It is alleged that the issuance of licence to the respondents was violative of Rule 263 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance but a perusal el" said rule would indicate that no order permitting a place to be used as a Stand would be made unless certain conditions given in the rule are fulfilled but this norm can be deviated from provided the Regional Transport. Authority gives special permission. Here the Stand is permitted by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Prima facie the order suffers from no illegality. Moreover, the petitioners/plaintiffs' have claimed that the introduction of the second Adda has brought them financial loss or is likely to bring such loss. Obviously their daily traffic and the revenue concerning such traffic can easily be calculated and so is the expected loss which can be conveniently measured in terms of money and hence no stay order can be granted when such loss can be measured and consequently claimed in case the plaintiffs succeed.
4. There is not the least of idea of the loss being irreparable. When the impugned act brings about some monetary loss to a party merely because that parties' monopoly is broken and new business concerns, provided not violative of any law, have resulted in the healthy competition favourable to the public at large, it does not in any sense of the term amount either to substantial or to irreparable loss within the meanings of well‑known three ingredients, rather restrictions, imposed by the Courts themselves on their power‑ to issue a temporary injunction. Hence I hold that the loss is not irreparable.
5. There is not an iota of such inconvenience, except some financial loss, to the petitioners. Rather there might be some convenience to the public at large on the other hand. The element of inconvenience is also missing and hence the petitioners are not entitled to a temporary injunction.
6. In case the plaintiffs ultimately succeed, they can claim the loss from the Government or any other quarter. Both the Courts below have rightly come to a concurrent conclusion. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. AA./1687/Pesh Revision dismissed.