1. ' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is a transporter and is plying its buses along with his partners with the name and style of Cheema & Bajwah Brothers Bus Service at General Bus Stand Faisalabad on the basis of valid route permits to run the buses on Faisalabad Sialkot route through Gujranwala from bay No,24. That after the construction/ renovation of new General Bus Stand Faisalabad, the transporters who used to ply their buses from the previous bays are being accommodated on the same routes and bays, and on this analogy, petitioner is entitled to use bay No,24 for running his business on account of revised plan approved by respondent No, 3 on 15-6-2007. Grievance being made is that due to monopoly of rival transporter companies being hand in glove with respondent No,3, petitioner is being restrained from using bay No,24 in violation of settled routine at the bus stand "first come first go", thereby causing irreparable financial loss to petitioner and inconvenience to the passengers on this route.
2. ' Respondents furnished written statement/report & comments controverting the stance and assertions of the petitioner maintaining that petitioner is neither a company nor a registered firm categorically denying the accusations of discrimination and mala fides by the respondent functionaries and the rival transporters. It is being maintained that petitioner is not yet a registered firm and even the old plan, only referred to and not produced, the name of the petitioner even does not figure therein. Furthermore, the plea of the petitioner stood falsified on account of the fact that all the route permits except one were obtained only in December 2007.
3. ' Arguments heard. Record perused. A self-styled transporter who even does not possess either registration of any bus or a route permit in his own name stands precluded from insisting upon the use of a particular bay in the bus stand. In this regard I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down by this Court in the case reported as 1986 M LD 2520 and I.C.A. No, 57 of 1998. In addition thereto, prima facie, facts of the case disclose that factual controversy arising from professional rivalry is being attempted to be raised herein calling for detailed inquiry entailing recording of evidente of the parties, cannot be allowed to be undertaken through invocation of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore, there is hardly any thing on record so as to establish that any vested right having been accrued in favour of the petitioner is being violated so as to victimize or discriminate him. In these circumstances I am least persuaded to exercise equitable jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and the captioned petition being palpably misconceived and devoid of any merit stands dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.