P L D 2005 Peshawar 96 (PLP)

Pir Liaqat Ali Shah Addl. A.‑G. for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th May, 2004. TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, J.‑‑‑Petitioner Miraj Ahmed Khan is dissatisfied because respondent No.10 i.e. District Regional Transport Authority Charsadda has allowed respondent No.3 Muslim Khan to manage/organize and hold a Bus Stand for Tangi and Matta which order is passed as Tehsil Nazim by respondent No. 10.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was allowed to run his bus stand since year 1999 there was no agreement between the petitioner and the then Regional Transport Authority and after NOC was obtained from the police his Adda was sanctioned which has been running smoothly but because of allotment of an Adda in favour of respondent No.3 some of the buses from his bus stand has started plying from newly allotted Adda, thus has caused financial loss to the business of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel has challenged the authority of the Tehsil Nazim to issue authorization for a bus stand.

4. The law on the subject now is N.‑W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance 2001. Its section 3 provides that the Ordinance shall have over‑riding effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 5 of the Ordinance is qua composition of local areas i.e. Union Council, Tehsil Council, Town and District Council etc., section 54 of the Ordinance deals with functions and powers of the Tehsil Municipal Administration. Under its subsection (1)(h)(vi) it is within the powers of Tehsil Nazim to make order in respect of parking places, transport stations, stops. Section 56 of the Ordinance provides that Tehsil Nazim shall be the head of Tehsil Administration.

5. Whether or not petitioner before us is an aggrieved person in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan but in view of section 54 read with section 56 of the Ordinance, Tehsil Nazim is competent and empowered to issue authority for holding or managing a bus stand as in the instant case.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has brought to our notice yet another circumstance by stating that agreement executed between the petitioner and the then Regional Transport Authority was only in respect of two routes i.e. Shabqadar‑Naguman and Shabqadar Michni Road which does not include Shabqadar‑Tangi and Shabqadar Matta of which licence is granted to respondent No.3.

7. For the forgoing reasons we dismiss this writ petition but with no order as to costs.

8. Fayyaz and Shaukat Ali who are given notice and show‑cause notice vide our order dated 14‑4‑2004 have filed their written replies and have only stated that because of the change in the nomenclature of respondents they could not put in appearance. Their explanation is reasonable and, therefore, the notices and show‑cause notices etc withdrawn. Mr. Fayaz who has executed bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 to the satisfaction of Senior Civil Judge Charsadda is relieved of the liabilities of bonds. H.B.T.325/P Petition dismissed.