2001 PLP 529 (CLC)

The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner allotted (Bay)/Point No.33‑in "C" Class General Bus Stand, Faisalabad for the route from Faisalabad to Rawalpindi. Respondent No.7 has already allotted (Bay)/Point No.31 for the same route at the same General Bus Stand prior to the petitioner. Petitioner's counsel stated that for the said route there are only petitioner and respondent No.7. It is further stated that respondent No.7 has allotted land adjacent to main gate of General Bus Stand. Respondent No.7 illegally operated his buses from his Workshop which has not been allotted by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to respondent No.7 for the purpose of halting point (Bus‑Stand) it is further stated that respondent .No.7 cannot use his Workshop for halting point or regular Stand; that on account of the action of respondent No.7, the petitioner has badly effected; that the petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of respondent No.7, submitted an application before the Secretary, R.T.A. Commissioner, Faisalabad Division and D.C. including Mayor, M.C., Faisalabad but the public functionaries did not pass any order on his application on account of the influence of respondent N0.7; that father of respondent No.7 was M.N.A. and former Chairman of Zila Council, Faisalabad; subsequently his son Shahid Nazir also elected as Chairman of Zila Council, Faisalabad; it is further stated that the aforesaid public functionaries did not decide the application of petition till date; that action of respondent No.7 is in violation of law; that inaction of public functionaries. created hardship to the petitioner; it is further stated that this ‑Court has ample powers to entertain the writ' petition as the principle laid down by this Court in Anjam Nawaz's case.NLR 1990 Civil Judgments 518; that the inaction of public functionaries is also highlighted in the Provincial Assembly on the question raised by Mansab Ali Dogar, M.P.A. in the following terms:_ He summed up his arguments .that in spite of the aforesaid question raised in the Provincial Assembly, the Chairman, R.T.A. did not decide the application of petitioner; that Secretary, R.T.A. has sent the application of petitioner to Mayor, M.C. Faisalabad for necessary action in the following terms:- "The aforementioned application was submitted to worthy Commissioner/Chairman, R.T.A., 'Faisalabad who has been pleased to order that the grievances of the applicant may be redressed under the relevant provisions of law, vide letter, dated 13‑1‑1999." It is also stated that Mayor M.C., Faisalabad did not take any action on that application on account of influence of respondent No.7.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 stated that Point (Bay) No.33 has allotted to respondent No.7 by the competent authority in accordance with law prior to the petitioner; he further stated that so far as the workshop is concerned the matter has been settled between respondent No.7 and the public functionaries up to the level of learned Additional District Judge; that respondent No.7 has filed C.M. alongwith documents to show previous background and raised Preliminary Objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of facts while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution.

3. Learned A.A.‑G. stated that petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.5202 of 1998 which was placed before my learned brother Mian Allah Nawaz, J. who disposed of the same with the observation that the respondents‑public functionaries should redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law, therefore, writ petition on the same subject is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 stated that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy before the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority.

5. In rebuttal, petitioner's counsel states that respondent No.7 has no authority to use his workshop as Bus Stand in place of the General Bus Stand in violation of Motor Viphicles Ordinance and Rules framed thereunder.

6. Be that as it may, without adverting to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has submitted an application for redressal of his grievance before the Chairman, R.T.A. on 26‑12‑1998 but he did not decide the same till date. It is settled proposition of law that public functionaries ate duty bound to act in accordance with law, without fear, favour and nepotism as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution. The Honourable Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for the public functionaries not to violate Article 25 of the Constitution in I.A. Sherwani's case 1999 SCMR 1041; the Honourable Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines for the public functionaries to act in accordance with law and Constitution in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC 530; that public functionaries should act independently without foreign pressure as the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Mohy‑ud -Din's case PLD 1964 SC

829. It is inherent right of the petitioner that his; application must be decided by the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority within reasonable time. It is strange to note that the petitioner has filed application in the year 1998 but he did not pass any order till date. The, petitioner is suffering loss on account of inaction of Chairman/Secretary, R.T.A. It is settled proposition of law that nobody shall be penalized by the act of public functionaries as the law laid down by this Court in PLD 1964 Lah.

3. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority is directed to decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 15 days, after receiving the order of this Court even at the cost of day‑to‑day proceedings. The petitioner and respondent No.7 are directed to appear before respondent No.7 in his office on 28‑6‑1999 at 11 a.m. Respondent No.7 is also directed to submit report to the D.R. (J.) of this Court within the stipulated period. Respondent No.7 and petitioner are at liberty to agitate the matter after the decision of Chairman, Regional Transport Authority before competent forum/authority.

7. Learned A.A.‑G. is also directed to inform Chairman, Regional Transport Authority about the aforesaid date of hearing and order. Disposed of. H.B.T./K‑49/K Order accordingly.