Preferential treatment

2018 PLD 122 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(12), 45(2), 51 & 52Provincial Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, R.96Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 18 & 25Lawful businessCantonment areaPreferential treatmentDiscriminationPetitioner was distributor of motor-cab rickshaws and was also owner of number of rickshaws being plyed by his drivers

Petitioner was aggrieved of restriction imposed by District Regional Transport authority in plying motor-cab rickshaw within cantonment area

Validity

Police report furnished by Chief Traffic Officer was made basis of decision in question

Such police report was not intended to be anything more than an expression of opinion by an Authority interested in maintenance of law and order

At the most, such report could be taken in nature of information supplied by police to the Authority in order to assist in making up their mind

Authority in fact believed recommendations of Chief Traffic Officer and same factually caused prejudice to a particular class by depriving them to enter into a lawful trade or business which otherwise granted under Art.18 of the Constitution

Problem of creating traffic congestion and apprehension of security hazards or threats for particular areas situated within cantonment limits indicated that one city was divided into different parts and inhabitants of one city were distributed into different classes

Residents of cantonment areas were given preferential consideration and what was not considered suitable for cantonment areas was permitted to prevail in municipal areas of same city

Such discriminatory attitude on part of public functionaries could not be given judicial sanction

Traffic police was supposed to maintain flow of traffic and not to allow traffic congestion but it did not mean that to facilitate traffic staff, by imposing reasonable restriction, public transport vehicles were stopped to be operational on roads

High Court directed respective quarters of administration to improve their skills and competence to deal with such issues

Imposing complete restrictions on lawful trade or business was not answer to such problems

High Court set aside order passed by the Authority as same suffered from serious defects and was result of an exercise of authority never vested in the Authority

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2018 PLD 641 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 153, 154, 158 & 159Suit for declaration and injunctionNatural gas, supply ofPreferential treatmentPrinciple

Plaintiff company sought allocation of natural gas under Art.158 of the Constitution in order to fuel a proposed Captive Power Plant

Validity

Plaintiff was not vested with a firm contractual right of guaranteed/uninterrupted supply of enhanced load, let alone a Fundamental Right in that regard, nor any case of discrimination was made out

Other Captive Power Plants situated outside province of Sindh were not supplied gas by authorities to plaintiff's detriment nor it was demonstrated that Captive Power Plants within province of Sindh were receiving gas from gas company

Policy regarding natural gas fell within Constitutional framework and in absence of some inherent element of unreasonableness that resulted in a demonstrable violation of a Fundamental Right, provisions of Art.158 of the Constitution could not, of itself, be agitated by plaintiff as an actionable ground in proceedings

Province had prerogative to agitate issue of its rights thereunder before the Council of Common Interests which process was already underway

High Court declined to issue any direction in favour of plaintiff company

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.