2001 PLP 1366 (YLR)

The petitioner has challenged vires of the order of the respondent, dated 12-7-2001 through this Constitutional petition. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner of Bus No.1HA/3290 having a valid route permit issued by respondent No.7 mentioned in para.2 of the writ petition. The petitioner has been plying his vehicles on this route for the last more than 20 years as is evident from Annexure-A/1 attached with the writ petition. Respondent No.2 through the impugned order approved the Route No.13 from Railway Station to Rana Town for the operation of transport of respondent No.8 provisionally subject to confirmation in the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure-2.

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that impugned notification was issued by respondent No.2 in violation of mandatory provisions of law i.e. Rule 57-A of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969. The competent authority under Rule 57-A is RTA. The said authority cannot be delegated to the Chairman or anybody else by virtue of Rule 62 of the aforesaid Rules. The impugned Notification has been issued by the Chairman who has no lawful authority to issue the Notification on in question. RTA under Rule 57A is only authority competent to classify route and Chairman has no authority under the aforesaid rules to issue impugned notification. He further submits that respondent No.8 is not eligible and does not qualify to apply for a franchise as the buses being plied by respondent No.8 on other routes in the city and intended to be plied on, this route are more than 20 years old buses which had been purchased by respondent No.8 as scrap from LRTC. He further submits that respondent No.& does not have requisite buses which according to rules is 40 in number. He further submits that impugned Notification is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution and respondents are duty bound to act in accordance with law. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record myself. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned Notification to resolve the controversy between the parties:

"On recommendations of ADC(G) Traffic Lahore, the Commissioner Lahore Division/Chairman, Lahore Regional Transport Authority vide his order, dated 7-7-2001 has been pleased to approve the following alignment of City Route No. 13 for the operation of Premier Bus Service, provisionally subject to confirmation in the next meeting of the authority". The aforesaid Notification reveals that impugned Notification is not final as is evident from the word used by respondent No.2 provisionally subject to confirmation. It is settled principle of law that writ petition against the interim arrangement or interim Notification or interim order is not maintainable, as per principle laid down by this Court in, case "Mian Ghulam Dastgir Bari. v. Rai Salah-ud-Din and 3 other" (PLD 1987 Lahore 39.1 am also fortified by the following judgment:

"Abdul Karim. v. Zaram Hussain" 1986 CLC 1942. The petitioner is well within his right to file an application before respondent No.3 to be impleaded him as a party on the ground that his vested right had been taken away by the respondents through 'the impugned Notification. The petitioner has alternative remedy before the respondents under the provisions of West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and rules framed there under. In this view of the matter the writ petition is not maintainable. However, in the interest of justice and fair-play in case the petitioner files an application for modification of the impugned Notification or setting-aside the same then the respondents are directed to decide the same in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and respondent No.8 within reasonable time. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-676/L Order accordingly.