1971 SCMR 805 (PLP)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner‑company held 21 route permits for service of stage carriages in the Lyallpur Municipal area and 6 miles beyond its limits on different routes, under the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1969. This Ordinance was amended on the 27th of June 1970, by the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Amendment Ordinance IX of 1970. Under section 19 of the Amendment Ordinance, all permits to ply a stage‑carriage, other than a permit authorising a stage‑carriage to ply in an urban area only, issued before the coming into force of the Ordinance, ceased to be valid and stood cancelled after the expiry of 60 days from the date of enforcement of the aforesaid Ordinance. As the stage‑carriage permits of the petitioner‑company related to routes outside the limits of the urban area, they came within the mischief of section 19 of the amendment Ordinance, and lost their validity. In consequence of this legal position, the Provincial Transport Authority, in its meeting held on the 26th of June, 1971, resolved that the petitioner‑company should have surrendered its permits before the 7th of August 1970, after which they stood cancelled. The petitioner‑company challenged this order in a writ petition to the High Court, which has been dismissed. The contention urged before us, which was also raised before the High Court, is that by a Notification No. 353‑70/93‑T‑1, dated the 6th of August 1970, issued by the Governor of the Punjab in exercise of his powers under rule 4 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, the motor vehicles, which were operated by the petitioner‑company on different routes, were exempted from the operation of rule 19 up to the 6th of August 1971. It is submitted that in the presence of this notification, the resolution of the Punjab Transport Authority to the effect that the company was not authorised to ply its stage‑carriages after the 7th of August 1970, was clearly wrong. The High Court formed the view that the notification aforesaid, which was issued under rule 4 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, had merely exempted the company from the operation of rule 57‑A up to the 6th of August 1971, which related to the classification of routes for stage carriage permits into (a), (b) and (c) categories on the basis of density of traffic and conditions of the road. It is obvious that this classification under rule 57‑A could have been only done in case of stage‑carriages, which had valid route permits, and not if the route permits were cancelled and non existent. Even holding that the extension of time to the petitioner company for service of its stage‑carriages was granted under sub section (2) of section 19 of the Ordinance, this extended period came to an end on the 6th of August 1971, which has long since come to an end, and which makes the present petition for special leave altogether infructuous. The petitioner‑company may, if so advised, approach the Government afresh for further extension of time. This petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.