1. ' MEHTA KAILASH NATH KOHLI, J.---Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was granted route permit for plying his buses/mini-buses from Pishin to Rod Mullazia via Khanozai, vide order dated 13th November, 2002 passed by Chairman, District Transport Authority/ D.C.O. Pishin (respondent No,2). It was stated that there is no other transporter, plying buses on the said route. Respondent Faiz Muhammad alias Khalo Jan, who is also transporter, plying his buses from Muslim Bagh to Pishin via Khanozai, Churmian Zakiazai Murgha to Khanozai to Pishin and Quetta from Yahyanika (Barshore) to Khanozai to Dilsoora to Pishin challenged the said route permit in appeal filed under section 66 of Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965 before Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority Balochistan (respondent No,1). It was stated that the said order of grant of route permit was void with regard to minutes of meeting, held between transporters as respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e, Secretary, District Transport Authority, Pishin. Issuance of time table dated 24th March, 2003, issued by respondent No,3 in favour of petitioner was also challenged. It was also stated that he is plying his buses on the route of Pishin to Khanozai via Rod Mullazai. It was further stated that learned appellate authority vide order dated 13th November, 2003 accepted the appeal, holding that it was not classified route under Rule-57-A, of Motor Vehicle Rules, framed pursuant to sections 68/69 of the Ordinance, 1965.
2. ' Notice of this petition was issued to the other side and counter affidavits were filed by official respondents, as well as, respondent No,4. It was stated in the counter affidavit that; (a) the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, as the petitioner does not possess any bus of the route permit, which was allotted to him as the bus was later on converted to a truck; (b) present petition is not maintainable, as the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority, carefully and petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, the petition on the face of it is not maintainable. It was further pointed out that the order was lawfully made, as there are several buses plying on said route, as such; no permission could have been granted. On merits also case of the petitioner was denied. Respondent No,4 also filed copy of the route permit along with alteration made vide order dated 20th March, 2004. A report was also filed by Naib Tehsildar, Pishin that the said bus bearing Registration No,BMA-402 has been converted into Truck bearing number TKE-241. The said fact was not controverted by the other side.
3. ' It is to note that the petitioner was granted permission and was also allocated time table. The said order was set aside vide order dated 18th September, 2003 by Member, Board of Revenue/Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority Balochistan, Quetta i.e, respond fit No,
1. The counter-affidavit filed on 20th July, 2004 was not controverted by the counsel for petitioner and it was stated that on account of having setting aside order, there was no option with the petitioner to have converted his bus into truck. On perusal of record, it is indicated that the change was made on 5th April, 2004.
4. ' Mr. Naeem Akhtar Afghan, learned counsel appeared for petitioner, while Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned counsel appeared for respondent No,4 and Mr. Amanullah Tareen, learned Assistant Advocate-General represented official respondents.
5. ' It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No,1 had set aside the route permit dated 13th November, 2002 along with time table dated 9th September, 2002 mainly on the ground that it was not a classified route permit as provided by Rule-57-A of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969. It was further contended that the respondent had no locus standi to challenge the same as he was not a competitor of the said route, who was different and distinct permit- holder from the route permit granted to the petitioner. It was also averred that the petitioner had wanted to ply his bus, but on account of cancellation of route permit, he had to earn his hard bread, he had to convert the same into truck and was plying as such.
6. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,4 stated that petitioner having converted the bus into truck had lost his right if any, and thus; he has no locus standi to initiate present proceedings. It was further contended that Rule-57-A provides classification of route; since this route has not been classified, thus; the Authority had no jurisdiction to issue route permit.
7. ' We have heard the arguments advanced by parties' learned counsel and perused the record. The first question for consideration is, as to whether Rule-57-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 has provided any penal consequences in case of failure of any relevant authority to declare the route classified or otherwise. The Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 have been framed pursuant to sections 68 and 69 of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965. Sections 44 and 45 of the Ordinance give authority to the competent authority for control of vehicles and conditions attached thereon. In the given provisions of section, no penal consequences or requirement has been embodied for an unclassified route permit. Rules 57-A and 57-B of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 are reproduced herein-below:-- "57-A. Classification of routes for stage-carriage.--
(i) The Regional Transport Authority shall classify the route (s) which originate and terminate within the Region; and
(ii) The Provincial Transport Authority shall classify the route (s) which originate and terminate in the jurisdiction of more than one Regional Transport Authorities; into 'A', 'B' and 'C' Categories for stage carriage permits on the basis of density of traffic and conditions of the roads: ' Provided that no route shall be given any classification unless:
(a) it is a route which permits have already been issued before coming into force of this rule; or
(b) it has already been classified by the Provincial Transport Authority: ' Provided further that no existing unclassified route shall be classified if it lies wholly or partly within an urban area unless an opportunity is given to the Road Transport Corporation to make a representation against the proposal to classify the route and any such representation made by it has been considered and decided.
8. "57-B. Restriction regarding old stage carriage.---(1) No permit shall be granted in respect of--
(i) 'A' category route if the stage carriage is more than four years old; and
(ii) 'B' category route if the stage carriage is more than six years old.
(2) A permit granted for a particular category under sub-rule (1) shall cease to be valid for that category if the stage carriage exceeds the age limit prescribed therefor.
(3) Routes other than 'A' and 'B' category routes shall be classified as 'C' category routes and there shall be no age restriction on the stage carriage for the grant of permit for this category.
(4) For reckoning the age of a stage carriage under this rule, the age shall ordinarily be calculated from the date of its first registration and in case of any question in this respect the decision of Provincial Transport Authority, after conducting such enquiry as it may deem fit, shall be final."
9. From perusal of above rules, it is abundantly clear that the classification has to be made in order to determine the maximum age of the vehicles to be plied on the said route, merely because the said classification has not been made by the competent authority or Highway Authorities, as well as, Communication and Works Department; it cannot be assumed that the permit cannot be issued for the said route. The route has not been defined by the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, however; in the judgment reported in AIR (36) 1946 Privy Council 137, definitions of 'Highway' and 'route' have been given, the same is reproduced herein-below:-- "A "Highway" is the physical track along which an omnibus runs, whilst a "route" appears to their Lordships to be an abstract conception of a line of travel between one terminus and another, and to be something distinct from the highway traversed."
10. From the above interpretation, which has been made, it is clear that the route has the abstract of one terminus to the other terminus, thus; the respondent No,4 cannot be termed to be a permit holder of same route, and thus; has no locus standi having any right to challenge the grant of route permit. The findings of the learned appellate authority that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of route permit on the score of Rule-57-A of the Rules of 1969 is equally without lawful authority as in the main provisions of the Ordinance, no such condition or consequences have been provided in the absence of classification of route.
11. The other question with regard to the fact that the petitioner having converted the bus into truck may not be sufficient for dismissal of this petition, as admittedly in 2003, his route permit was cancelled and there was no way out for him except to utilize the vehicle for other purposes. Suffice to observe that respondent No,4 also cannot be termed as competitor of the same route, as he is plying his bus on different route permit. Although, his route is covered part of same road/highway would not entitle him to challenge the same. In view of Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the right of healthy competition of lawful business or trade has been provided. It would be unfair to deprive a particular part of the people from use of public transport in this modern age on the pretext that it is not a classified route.
12. In the circumstances of the case, we hold that respondent No,4 has no locus standi to file appeal before the appellate authority, as well as, no penal consequences have been provided for not declaring the route as classified. We, therefore, declared that the impugned order dated 13th November, 2003, passed by Provincial Transport Authority Balochistan i.e, respondent No,1 having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal consequence, and; restore the permit issued by District Transport Authority. We also direct the competent authority to take appropriate measures for declaring the route as classified.
13. ' Petition stands disposed of in above terms.