Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑ Art. 199 ‑ West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules. 1969, t. 60‑Route permit, renewal of‑‑Petitioners alleging that new route permits obtained under coercion and duress as renewal of existing route. permits refused by Authority‑Authority denying having renewed same applications for such route permits‑Petition disposed of by consent, with order that "if applications of petitioners traced out ";f in Authority's office same may be disposed in accordance with law, but otherwise Authority will not be required to decide any renewal application".

N. A. Farooqui for Petitioners.

Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Addl..A.‑C: for respondents.

Date of hearing : 10th September, 1981.

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑This petition has been filed by 24 petitioners who were holding route permits in respect of the routes mentioned in Annexure A' to the petition for the various periods mentioned therein. It seems that in January, 1979 rule 57‑A was added empowering the Provincial Transport Authority to classify routes into A, B. and C categories for Stage Carriage Permits on the basis of density of load and condition of routes. It further seems that while the petitioners' old route permits prior to the incorporation of the above rule 57‑A were operative the respondents purported to modify the routes. In consequence thereof, some of the petitioners filed Petitions Nos. D‑1044, 1045, 1177, 1178, 1199 and 1343 of 1979, challenging the notification issued in. pursuance of above rule 57‑A. The above petitions were disposed of by a judgment dated 17th October, 1979 on the basis of the following statement made by the learned Additional Advocate‑General.

(1) That the permits, which have already been issued to the peti tioners will not be affected, and are not going to be cancelled till the period of their validity;

(2) That upto the last date of the validity of the permits, the routes of the buses will not be subjected to any change. ‑ "'"

2. It is the case of the petitioners in the present petition that upon the expiry of the periods of the routes permits, the peti tioners applied for the renewal of the same under section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1969, but the respondents refused to renew the same. It has been urged by Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, the learned Additional Advocate‑General, that no application for renewal was submitted by the petitioners and that the petitioner had obtained new route permits voluntarily and therefore, they have no cause of action.

4. The petitioners have filed an affidavit in support of their aver ment that the applications for renewal of the route permits were filed, whereas the respondent has filed a counter‑affidavit averring therein that no renewal applications are available on the record. It may also be pertinent to observe that the petitioners have alleged in their affidavit that they had obtained fresh permits under coercion and duress. Be that as it may, by consent this petition is disposed of in the following terms :‑

"If the petitioners' applications for renewal to respect of their old route permits can be traced out in the respondent's office, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law but in case no such applications are traceable the respondents will not be re quired to decide any renewal application." There will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. M. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.