2003 PLP 217 (CLC)

"Provided that the fee for the grant of renewal of a certificate of fitness payable to a licensed Automobile Workshop shall be rupees ten." In addition to rule 35‑A which prescribes procedure as to the issuance of a licnece/renewal thereof, there is rule 35‑B relating to suspension or cancellation of a licence while Rule 35‑C confers power on an appellate authority for entertaining appeals if a person is aggrieved under Rule 35(B) as to the suspension or cancellation of his licence. The aforesaid Rules were amended by the competent authority vide Notification, dated 7‑8‑1993. The same are reproduced hereunder:‑‑‑ "In exercise of the powers conferred to him under section 43 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 (XIX of 1965) the Governor of the Punjab, after previous publication, is pleased to direct that in the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, in their application to the Province of the Punjab, the following further amendments shall be made, namely:‑‑‑ In the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969‑‑‑ (i) in rule 34, in sub‑rule (1) the words and expressions. Signature of authorized person __________ Seal of the Licensed Automobile Workshop ____________ Licence No.__________________ Place of issue ______________ shall be omitted (ii) in rule 35‑‑‑ (a) in sub‑rule (1) and in sub‑rule (9), the provisos shall be omitted; (b) in sub‑rule (2) the words "form C.F.R.A. respectively" shall be omitted; and (c) the words "or a Licenced Automobile Workshop" wherever occurring shall be omitted; and (iii) rules 35‑A, 35‑B and 35‑C shall be omitted." Kohistan Bus Service Automobile Workshop and others being aggrieved filed various writ petitions including Writ Petitior3 No.13831 of 1993 which were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 2‑5‑1995. The private automobile workshop owner:, approached the respondents for revival of old system which was before the amendment, dated 7‑8‑1993. The summary was submitted before the competent authority by the Secretary Transport but the competent authority did not approve the summary of the Secretary Transport. The summary was also submitted to the Governor of Punjab by the Secretary Transport on 6‑12‑2000 to the following effect as is evident from para.3 of the summary:‑‑‑ "The Motor Vehicle Examination may not be outsourced to Private Automobile Workshop/University of Engineering and Technology." The Finance Secretary has made following remarks qua the aforesaid summary of the Secretary Transport under the direction of competent authority on 1‑3‑2001: "The proposal put forward by Transport Department vide sub para. (a) of para. 3 is linked with the generation of revenue. Finance Department supports it in principle. So far as the provision of Rs. 23.80 lac is concerned, it is suggested that as a test case, we may sanction Rs. 0.70 lac for the office of MVE at Lahore only for equipping their workshop with the latest machinery. With the usage of new techniques/machinery, there is a possibility that revenue receipts would show an upward trend and the quality of examination improves and this may, therefore, be put to a test." The aforesaid summary was approved by the Governor with the following remarks on 22‑3‑2001:‑‑ "Governor has seen. Transport is part of Works and Services Department in the proposed (new) district set up. Therefore, outsourcing of MVE at this point may not be appropriate Governor also sanctions Rs.0.70 lac (Rupees Seventy thousand only) for the office of MVE at Lahore only for equipping workshop with the latest machinery (as suggested by FS). This should be a test case fo7 Transport Department." In the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Governor on 22‑12‑2001 decision was taken to the following effect.:‑‑‑ "The Governor Punjab was pleased to direct that Motor Vehicle. Examiners to coordinate/assist the proposed automobile workshops for examining the vehicles before issuance of fitness certificates. " The proposed amendment was prepared and suggested following amendments in Rule 35: (ii) in sub‑rule (1) after clause (a), the following proviso shall be added: "Provided that the District Regional Transport Authority may authorise any licensed Automobile Workshop to perform the functions of a Motor Vehicle Examiner." The petitioners submitted representation to the Governor on 22‑4‑2002. The meeting of the Committee was held under the Chairmanship of the Governor on 1‑5‑2002 and had decided the matter in the following terms:‑‑ "Progress to be reviewed on operations to be started ire Faisalabad (Manthar Metro Bus Service), Lahore (Premier Trading Service), Sialkot and more buses in Multan in 2002. Outsourcing of Motor Vehicles Examination. Installation of Fare Meters. Modernization of Cab System." In case the aforesaid facts are put in a juxtaposition then it is crystal clear tat no final order has been passed and approved by the Governor. It is settled principle of law that this Court prefers to exercise judicial restraint and does not favour interference with inter‑departmental affairs. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by Amin Jan v. Director‑ General, T&T and others PLD 1985 Lah.

81. However, in the interest of justice and fair play let a copy of the writ petition be sent to respondent No.2 who is directed to consider the same as objections filed by the petitioners before him in terms of the proposed Notification dated 17‑4‑2002. Respondent No.1 is also directed to place on record all the previous summaries before the Governor so that competent authority be in a position to have a complete picture before him at the time of passing the final order so that law should be framed in accordance with the provisions of West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 keeping to view the overall position with regard to merits and demerits of all laws qua the history of rules in the field. Office is directed to send copy of this judgment to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for necessary action and compliance. With these observations this writ petition is disposed of. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1339/L Order accordingly.