2008 PLP 573 (CLD)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.

The petitioner was in the business of running a travel agency under the name and style of O.K. Travels, his offices were located in Lahore, Gujranwala arid Rawalpindi. He was granted licence to this effect by the concerned authorities, however, after 19 years, due to an accident, the petitioner could not continue with his business and was shifted to Canada for treatment, where he remained for quite a while. In December, 2006, the petitioner returned home and made a request for issuance of a licence in the same name, i.e. O.K. Travels. The request was declined by respondent No.1, stating that another entity had been granted licence in the name of O.K. Tours, and as word O.K. was common between them, therefore, the request of the petitioner could not be entertained. The petitioner was not satisfied with the explanation offered by respondent No.1, he, therefore, addressed a letter through his counsel to respondent No.1 challenging the grounds of refusal. The letter was replied after two months, again declining the request, stating the earlier reasoning. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 and filed an appeal, inter alia, contending that the word O.K. was common to so many entities, detailing them, therefore, the explanation offered was not proper. But this appeal was dismissed. Hence the present petition by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the word O.K. is common to several entities and in this context he detailed the following entities to substantiate his claim:-- (1) Sky Star Travels; (2) Sky Dome Travels; (3) Sky Lark Travels; (4) Travel Base; (5) Travel Smooth; (6) Travel Line; (7) Travel Shop; (8) Travel Easy; (9) Travel Today; (10) Karwan-e-Madina; (11) Karwan-e-Mina and (12) Karwan-e-Islami. Thereafter the learned counsel pleaded that the treatment meted out to him is discriminatory and not in consonance with the legal requirements, the petitioner holds expertise in this field and, therefore, has a fundamental right to carry on business of his choice, also that all citizens are equal before law and also entitled to equal protection under it, but the petitioner is being discriminated, because, he is President of the Association of Travel Agents and had' been highlighting their grievances before the relevant government authorities, this did not find favour with the respondents therefore, he is being penalized. To further augment his submissions the learned counsel relied on Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and also stated that access to justice is a fundamental right guaranteed, he, therefore, can approach this Court for redressal of his grievance.

3. The learned Deputy Attorney General contended that the name O.K. Travels is deceptive to perspective clients, as it is similar to O. K. Tours, therefore, this is against policy and law, the petitioner has a right of appeal, therefore, the present petition is incompetent. He lastly submitted that if the relief prayed for is granted, it would open up a pandora's box and would cause multiple problems and it would become impossible for the respondents to come to terms with chaos which would be created.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is governed by the Travel Agencies Act, 1976. The procedure for the grant of licence is incorporated in section 4 of the Act. The requirements to apply for a licence are detailed therein, it nowhere has been mentioned in these terms, that a person can be refused licence on the ground of similarity of name, therefore, it obviously is not part of policy or law, this position is further fortified from the fact that the respondents, already have granted several entities' names, which initiate with similar names, e.g. Sky Star Travels, Sky Dome Travels, Sky Lark Travels, Travel Base, Travel Smooth, Travel Line, Travel Shop, Travel Easy, Travel Today, Karwan-e-Madina, Karwan-e-Mina and Karwan-e-Islami. Thus if the respondents were prohibited in law to refuse licence on the ground of similarity of first name, they would not have granted these entities licences. It, thus, is clear that the petitioner has been discriminated for whatever reason. This is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

5. As far as the objection of the learned Deputy Attorney General is concerned qua remedy of appeal the. petitioner has a right of appeal under section 13 of the Travel Agencies Act, 1976, but, the same is restricted only to a travel agency, which has been granted a licence under section 4 of the Travel Agencies Act, 1976. The petitioner so far is not a "licence" in terms of section 2(b) of the Act and holds no licence, therefore, obviously cannot invoke the right of appeal (although he did make an effort in this context by filing an appeal before respondent No.2) this objection, therefore, too has no substance and is thus over-ruled. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 17-2-2007 and 12-7-2007, refusing licence to the petitioner are set aside and respondent No.1 is directed to issue, the petitioner a licence, under the name O.K. Travels Agent, as prayed for. M.H./M-33/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.