' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.--- The petitioners have impugned the judgment dated 29-3-2002 of a learned Division Bench, High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby C.P. No,D-319 of 1998 filed by the respondent No,1, Syed Tanvir Ahmed, was allowed with an observation that as long as the respondent No,1 possessed valid route permit granted by the Provincial Transport Authority, the petitioners could not require him to obtain a separate licences for allowing entry of his vehicles in the Cantonment area.
2. The facts relevant for decision of this petition are that respondent No,1 is a retired Army Officer and was running his vehicles under the name and style of "Askari Coach Service" from Malir Cantt.
To Karachi Cantt. Railway Station on the 9/C route, as per terms and conditions, incorporated in agreement dated 21-8-1997 arrived at between the respondent No,1 and the petitioner No,3 permitting him to ply his special coaches from 23-8-1997, subject to obtaining route permit from the Transport Authority. The agreement was valid upto three years viz. 23-8-1997 to 22-8-2000. In spite of above agreement, the petitioner No,1 published a public notice in the daily Jang, Karachi on 21-12-1997 calling tender for route from Super Highway to Karachi Cantt. Railway Station (via Malir Cantt., Malir Halt, Shahr-e-Faisal). Another such notice was published by the petitioners in the daily Nawa-e-Waqat, Karachi dated 14-1-1998. The respondent No,1 had protested to various authorities, but with no Jesuit. On 18-2-1997 his vehicles were stopped by the petitioners. He filed writ petition before High Court, which was allowed and said judgment has been impugned in this petition.
3. Before High Court, learned A.A.-G., who appeared for the Provincial Government supported the case of the respondent No,1 by stating that power to grant route permit only vested in the Provincial Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance and any restriction imposed by the petitioners was an invasion over the power of Provincial Transport Authority. Learned High Court, while allowing the petition, in para.8 of the impugned judgment observed as follows:-- "Mr. Faisal Khalid attempted to meet this argument by contending that a permit granted by the respondent No,3 was applicable only within the areas of Province and Cantonments did not fall within such area We are afraid there is no force in this contention either inasmuch as it has been clearly laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pakistan v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 1975 SC 37 that there is nothing in any Constitution or any law to show that a Cantonment area is not to be included within the territorial limits of a Province in which it is situate."
4. It appears that correspondence was exchanged between the petitioners and the respondents. In a letter dated 5-6-2002 signed by a Lt.-Col. For Commander Arshad Anwar on the subject "Cancellation of Route Permit" addressed to Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Karachi, it was written that area falling in the Malir Garrison is bounded by boundary walls and consists of all military sensitive organization and military hardware and that to ensure proper safety and security of the Garrison, people coming in and going out of the Garrison are entered at the entry points and security wise cleared. The latter asked the addressee not to issue route permits for any transport required to be plied inside the Garrison Limits. It appears that after the Constitutional petition was allowed the Secretary, District Regional Transport Authority, Karachi had written a letter dated 30- 4-2003 to the Station Transport Officer, Station Headquarters, Malir Cantt., Karachi mentioning about order passed by the High Court, which letter inter alia, stated as follows:-- "As regards, the validity of route permits, the route itself duly classified under the Provincial Transport Authority's Order No, 162/PTA/93/1624-29/97, dated 1-8-1997 stands intact and any stage carriage holding valid route permits can be operated on the specified route within the territorial limits of the District Regional Transport Authority irrespective of the administrative boundaries of, various civic agencies like towns, K.P.T., C.A.A., Cantonment Boards etc. In case of expiry of the route permits, the District Regional Transport Authority has the powers to renew it as per relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965."
' In another letter, dated 3-1-2003 of Secretary, Regional transport Authority, Karachi addressed to the Commander, Station Headquarters, Malir Cantt., Karachi, inter alia, it was mentioned therein that so far security and safety of cantonment area was concerned the addressee could take necessary measures in that regard.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that learned High Court failed to appreciate the facts in their true perspective and reached wrong conclusion. Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioners laid great emphasis on section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 to contend that for safety purposes the petitioners were justified to stop the vehicles of the respondent No,1 in the area falling in their jurisdiction.
6. It is significant to note that said respondent had never challenged the authority of the petitioners for taking necessary measures for safety purposes and such action can always be taken. On the one hand the petitioners have taken the plea of security and on the other hand they invited tenders for the same route on which the vehicles of the respondent No,1 were plying. Under no provision of law, the petitioners are authorized to assume the duties of the Provincial Transport Authority, which is the competent authority relating to the transport affairs. The route permit of respondent No,1 was validly issued and the petitioners had no authority to stop his vehicles. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority on 7-1-2003 has renewed/issued fresh permit in favor of respondent No,1, which is valid upto 2-10-2005 and its route is as Asif Market (Malir Cantt.) C.M.H. Malir Cantt., Cantt. Bazar, Malir Cantt., Military Check Post No,2, Jinnah Avenue, Malir Halt, Shahrahe-Faisal, Drigh Road Railway Station, Nursery, Gora Qabrastan, Holiday Inn, Crown Plaza (Ex-Taj Mahal Hotel), Jinnah Hospital, Askari Apartment.
7. This Court in the case referred to above has held that a Cantonment area is included within the territorial limits of Province in which it is situate. Nothing material has been brought to substantiate the plea that the petitioners are legally competent to undo the act of the Provincial Transport Authority. No interference is warranted.
8. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.