2014 C L C 1433
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Noor Meskanzai and Muhammad Ejaz Swati, JJ
YAR MUHAMMAD----Petitioner
Versus
PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BALOCHISTAN through Chairman and 3
others ----Respondents
Constitutional Petition No.(S)9 of 2013, decided on 28th April, 2014.
Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965) ---
----S. 62---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 ---Constitutional petition ---Cancellation of route
permit---Scope ---Petitioner filed appeal before Chairman Provin cial Transport Authority wherein
direction was issued to Secretary Regional Transport Authority to allow the petitioner to ply his
bus and to issue time table in his favour ---Said order was not complied with and order of
cancellation of route -permit was pa ssed without considering the legal aspect of the matter that
both the orders were conflicting ---Provisions of Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965
were not adhered while passing the impugned order as respondent -Transport Authority decided
the fate of route permit without directing any inquiry or probe ---Transport Authority which
granted a permit might cancel or suspend the same for such period which was considered proper -
--Cancellation of route permit could be ordered only by the Transport Authority who granted the
same subject to procedure prescribed by law and rules ---Authority had no jurisdiction to issue
any such order without making probe or conducting inquiry through concerned Transport
Authority which had granted route permit ---Authority had base d his order on the verbal assertion
of the party despite the fact that relevant record and reports of concerned Transport Authority
was not available--- Impugned order had no legal sanction and same was not sustainable and was
set aside and Transport Author ity was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law ---
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Sardar Ahmed Haleemi for Petitioner.
Humayun Tareen, Addl. A.- G. for Respondents
Date of hearing: 13th March, 2014.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J. --- The petitioner has called in question the order
dated 24th January, 2013 (hereinafter the "impugned order") passed by Chairman, Provincial
Transport Authority Balochistan, Quetta (PTA)/respondent No.1, whereby the Route Permit
No.2 of 2007 covering vehicle No.QAD -4616 computerized No.13SA -945 as well as other four
route permits mentioned in the impugned order were cancelled.
2. Brief facts of the instant pension are that the respondent No.4 has filed Appeal No.9 of
2012 before t he Chairman PTA Balochistan against the timetable dated 14th June, 2012 and
cancellation of Route Permit No.2/2007/RTA meant for Aeri to Sibi route vice versa covering
vehicle computerized No. BSA -945 issued by District Transport Authority, District Bolan
Kachhi in favour of petitioner, which was decided vide order dated 7th August, 2012 passed by
PTA. against the petitioner. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing Constitutional Petition
No.91 of 2012, which was allowed by this Court vide order da ted 13th December, 2012 and the
matter was remanded to respondent No.1 with direction to pass order alter hearing both the
parties. The respondent No.1 after hearing the parties vide impugned order accepted the appeal
and cancelled the route permit of the petitioner including other four route permits of the
petitioner as mentioned in the impugned order, hence this petition.
3. It is necessary to mention here that prior to filing appeal by the respondent No.4, the
petitioner had filed Appeal No.3 of 2012 before PTA Balochistan, Quetta in respect of Route
Permit No.2 of 2007 and issuance of timetable in his favour which was decided vide order dated
24th March, 2012 and the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Naseer Abad (RTA) and
Secretary RTA, Sibi were directed to allow the petitioner to ply his bus bearing Registration
No.QDA- 4626 new No. BSA -945 having Route Permit No.2/2007 and also issue timetable in his
favour. When the above order was not complied with, then the petitioner had filed a
Constitution al Petition No.46 of 2012 for implementation of the order dated 24th March, 2012,
which was disposed of with the following directions: ---
"In view of the above proposition, the representative of respondent No.3 assures that the
order passed on 24th Marc h, 2012 by Chairman Provincial Transport Authority Balochistan,
Quetta shall be complied with in stricto sensu within a week."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.1 has passed the
impugned order without considering the record and against the relevant provisions of law; that in
Appeal No.3. of 2012, the respondent No.1 had passed the order dated 24th March. 2012
pertaining to Route Permit No.2 of 2007 and issued directions to the RTA to allow the petitioner
for plying the vehicle and issuance of timetable that the private respondent No.4 obtained Route
Permit No.8 of 2009 in respect of Bus No.BSA -412, whereas said bus is in ownership of one
Saeed Ahmed son of Abdul Hameed. The respondent No.1 has sent the case for inquiry and
probe to the concerned RTA, whereas in the case of petitioner, it cancelled the same without any
inquiry or probe which is violative of natural justice; that the respondent No.4 has only sought
cancellation of Route Permit No.2 of 2007, but the res pondent No.1 without consulting the
record and documents cancelled the other route permits of petitioners and thus, deprived him
from his vested right; that the respondent No.1 disregarded the law and misapplied the relevant
provisions of law and on the ve rbal assertion of respondent No.4 decided the factual aspects
within the competence of RTA, which order is coram non judice that there are two orders of
respondent No.1 in respect of same route permit and the vehicle of the petitioner, the order dated
24th March, 2012. which is in field, which protects the right of petitioner's route permit,
therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained under the law.
The learned counsel for respondent No.4 defended the impugned order and contended
that the impugned order was passed with the consent of the parties and the petitioner is estopped
from his conduct; that the petitioner had obtained three route permits and later on two more
permits were obtained by him and he is plying his one vehicle on all five permits a nd thus
created difficulties and hurdles for them; that the petitioner acted in violation of relevant
provisions of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 (hereinafter the "Ordinance") and the impugned
order has been passed in accordance with law, which is liable to be sustained.
The learned Additional Advocate -General appearing on behalf of official respondents
contended that the respondent No.2 has issued timetable on 14th June, 2012 in pursuance of
order dated 7th June, 2012 passed by this Court and also rele ased the bus of the petitioner on 7th
June, 2012. It is further contended that the route permits in question were issued by the
competent authority in favour of the parties, however, the petitioner in pursuance of order dated
24th March, 2012 passed by res pondent No.1 did not approach the concerned RTA for issuance
of timetable.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record.
We find that initially the petitioner had filed Appeal No.6 of 2012 before respondent N o.1, which
was decided on 24th March, 2012, whereby the following order was passed by respondent No.1: -
--
"After hearing the counsel, perusing the record, I reached the conclusion that the appeal
filed before the court by the appellant is not proper under the provision of MVO, 1965, however,
a decision announced in another case of appellant on 24- 3-2012 vide Appeal No.3/PTA/2012 in
case of Yar Muhammad v. Ghulam Mustafa therefore the case is disposed of with the direction
to the Secretary RTA Nasirabad and Secretary RTA Sibi (respondent No.3 and 2) to allow the
appellant to ply his Bus bearing Registration QAD -4616 new No.BSA -945 having Route Permit
No.2 of 2007 and also issue time table in favour of appellant according to the prescribed route
mention (si c) in the route permit with the consulting of area Transport Union etc."
6. The perusal of record indicates that in pursuance of above order, the concerned RTA had
not complied with the order, as such the petitioner had filed C.P. No.46 of 2012, which wa s
disposed of on 7th June, 2012, whereby the RTA, Sibi assured that the order dated 24th March,
2012 passed by respondent No.1 shall be complied with. It appears that as per the order dated
24th March, 2012, directions have been given to the Secretary RTA, Naseer Abad and Sibi, to
allow the petitioner to ply his Bus No.BSA -945 having Route Permit No.2 of 2007 and also
issued timetable in his favour. The available record indicates that the above order holds field,
whereas in the impugned order, the respondent No.1 without considering the above legal aspect
of the matter, has cancelled the route permit of the petitioner, which is in conflict of its own
orders, thus the impugned order in the above facts and circumstances is not sustainable.
7. The other aspec t of the matter is that the respondent No.4 in appeal had challenged the
Route Permit No.2 of 2007 covering Bus No.BSA -945 and during arguments, the respondent
No.1 while relying on the contentions of respondent No.4 not only cancelled the Route Permit
No.2 of 2007, but also the other four route permits of the petitioner were cancelled, whereas in
respect of Route Permit No.8 of 2009 of the respondent No.4 issued by RTA Naseer Abad, there
was allegation that the said route permit is forged, but the responde nt No.1 has directed probe
and inquiry through RTA Naseer Abad, which indicates that the relevant provisions of the
Ordinance has not been adhered while passing the impugned order, as on the similar allegation,
the respondent No.1 decided the fate of route permit of the petitioner without directing any
inquiry or probe. It is pertinent to mention here that the provisions concerning grant of route
permit duration and conditions, for holding the permit or its cancellation, transfer, suspension,
renewal, fixat ion of timing and replacement etc. are regulated by sections 50 and 59 to 62 of the
Ordinance, as well as Rules 79 to 92 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969. It may be seen that the
provisions of section 62 of the Ordinance, 1965 provide cancellation and suspensi on of route
permit. The relevant section is reproduced hereinbelow: ---
Cancellation and suspension of permit.--- (1) The Transport Authority which granted a
permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit---
(a) on the breach of any condition specified in subsection (3) of section 61 or of any other
condition contained in the permit; or
(b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to which the permit relates to
be used in any manner not authorized by the permit; or
(c) if the holder of the permit ceases to possess the vehicle or vehicles covered by the permit;
[or
(d) if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation; or
(e) if the holder of a public carrier's permit .fails, without reasonable cause, to ply the
vehicle; or
(f) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows the vehicle or vehicles to be used for
subversive activities against the State; or
(g) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows the vehicle or vehicles to be used for
the transport of goods the movement of which is banned under any law for the time being in
force, or for the commission of a cognizable offence; or
(h) if a forgery has been committed in respect of the perm it or it has in any way otherwise
been tampered with:
Provided that no permit shall he cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the
holder of the permit to submit his explanation and of being heard."
The perusal of above provisions indicate that the transport authority which granted a
permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit keeping in view
the above provisions of law. The record of this case amply discloses that the respondent No.1 has
not considered the relevant provisions of law and passed the impugned order merely on the
verbal assertion of the respondent No.4. Admittedly the cancellation of route permit could be
ordered only by the authority who granted the same subject to procedure prescribed by law and
rules, therefore, undisputedly the respondent No.1 has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue any
such order without making probe or conducting inquiry through concerned transport authority,
which granted the permit. It may be seen that the respondent No.1 instead of exercising his
authority and discretion has completely based its order on the verbal assertion of the party
despite of the fact that the relevant record and reports of the concerned transport authority was
not available, thus the order passed by respondent No.1 has no legal sanction, as no inquiry and
probe in respect of route permit of the petitioner has been conducted through the concerned
authority and without having any inquiry report and complying the provisions of section 62 of
the Ordinance, has passed the impugned order.
For the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to partly accept the petition, the order dated
24th January, 2013 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside and the Appeal No.9 of 2012 filed by
respondent No.4 be deemed to be pending before respondent No.1, who shall decide the same in
accordance with law particularly adhering the provisions of section 62 of the Ordinance.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
AG/42/Bal. Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.