The petitioner has introduced itself as an entity involved in transport business and in such capacity has entered into various commercial agreements and arrangements with several other individuals to ensure to cater a continuous and up-to-date fleet of vehicles, buses, stage carriages etc., an in order to ensure the availability of buses at different halting points and bus-bays, entered into hiring agreements with various other private owners of the vehicle, who don?t have the capacity to strictly run their own Transport Company and, thus, were willing to enlist their vehicles in the fleet of any "self-styled recognized and established transporters", and petitioner, itself, has termed as having such arrangements, which are commercially viable and profitable.
2. The petitioner went on to saying regarding its any competence that some private owners of the vehicles have handed over their such vehicles to the petitioner on the basis of such hiring agreements, and the same are being plied by the petitioner in transport business. The petitioner accepts its responsibility according to such hiring agreements to ply said vehicles in road worthy conditions and to pay the rent to its owners.
By admitting one aspect in clear terms that, the petitioner has not attained the status of the owner of the buses, being plied in the said fleet, it is also pleaded that the name of the petitioner was being exhibited on all such vehicles.
3. The grievance started for the petitioner, when the Administrator, General Bus Stand, City District Government, Lahore/District Officer Passenger & Freight Transit Terminal (respondent No.2) issued a direction to the following effect:- {{URDU TEXT}} The petitioner felt the said direction as an invasion on its right in exhibiting its own name on all the buses of different owners and challenged the issuance of said order.
4. After issuance of the above order, one bus bearing registration No.FSD-7537 was statedly impounded by respondent No.2 and not only its release was prayed for, but the impugned order was sought to be set at naught.
Alongwith the writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record a number of documents either hiring agreements or authority letters, executed by the owners of the vehicles in favour of the petitioner and in order to ascertain and understand the things in clarity, one of such hiring agreement and one authority letter is reproduced herein-below:- {{URDU TEXT}}
5. A report from the City District Government to the writ petition was filed elaborating the malpractices, which are being prevailed in the transport mafia, particularly, by the entities; like the petitioner, who have adopted the role of, in fact, Commission Agents, protectors to the illegal activities of the transporters and also highlighted the difficulties of the government agencies in case of any fatal accident, wherein any vehicle is involved, and the matter of compensation to the aggrieved families of the victims of such road side accidents, which includes the determination of actual ownership of the vehicles, fixation of responsibility of the cause of accident and remaining allied matters.
6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been perused.
7. In order to consolidate the laws relating to motor vehicles in all the Provinces, The Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 (Ordinance No.XIX of 1965) was promulgated on 18.06.1965. The Provinces, thereafter in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 22, 43, 68,69, 70, 74, 96 and 120 of the said Ordinance, have framed the rules called as Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules')
8. The insistence of the petitioner is that, it being a licencee or at the most a lessee with regard to the motor vehicles, being supervised by it owned by different individuals can paint and colour the said vehicles by exhibiting the name of the petitioner, which has been prohibited by means of impugned order.
Rule 34 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 reads as follows:- "34. Particulars to be printed on transport vehicles. - (1) Save in the case of motor cabs, delivery vans or trailers of the nature specified in clause (h) of sub-section (3) of section 44, the particulars set forth below shall be exhibited in a fixed frame inside the vehicle in the driver's cab, in English letters and numerals:--
1. Registered No. of vehicle
2. Name and address of owner as set forth in the Certificate of Registration.
3. The Registered Unladen Weight in lbs. Denoted by U.W.
4. The Registered, Laden Weight in lbs. denoted by R.L.W.
5. Carrying capacity:-
(a) if a stage or a contract carriage, the number of the passengers of whom accommodation is provided.
(i) Upper Class
(ii) Lower Class
(b) and (b) if a goods vehicle, in lbs.
6. Registered Front Axle Weight in lbs. denoted by F.A.W.
7. Registered Rear Axle Weight in Lbs. denoted R.A.W.
8. Number and size of tyres:
(a) Front Axle
(b) Rear Axle
(c) Intermediate Axle, if any Signature and name of the Motor Vehicle Examiner.
[Signature of the authorized person Seat of the licensed Automobile Workshop Licence No. Place of issue
(2) The full name of the company, society, firm or person owning the vehicle as set forth in its registration certificate shall be exhibited on both sides of every transport vehicle other than motor cabs, delivery vans and trailers, in block letter measuring four inches in height and three-fourth of an inch in thickness.
Provided that with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority concerned abbreviation of names may be used.
(3) In case of a motor cab, or a motor cab rickshaw, the word "TAXI" shall be printed in white in the middle of the wind screen as well as of the rear glass. The letters shall be not less than 2-1/2 inches high and 5/8th of an inch thick at any part. The word "Private" in block letters not less than 2-1/4 inches high and 5/8th of an inch thick at any part shall be painted in red in the middle of the wind- screen of a motor cycle rickshaw.
(4) This rule shall not apply to any vehicle registered under section 40 or 41].
Above sub-rule (2) amply clarifies the position that, it is only the owner, (company, society, firm or person owning the vehicle) as set-forth in its registration certificate, whose name shall be exhibited on both sides of every transport vehicle, thus, the petitioner, who admittedly is not the owner of any vehicle, is not entitled to get its name exhibited on any vehicle.
In view of Rule 46 of the Rules, even in case of hire purchase agreements, the parties to an agreement are bound to declare such transaction in the form of a note endorsed on Form "F" to the effect that the vehicle is subject to such an agreement and the registering authority then shall complete and affix his signature to the note appended to Form "G".
9. The demand of the petitioner in getting its name exhibited on the buses of other owners is, thus, hit by Rule 34(2) of the Rules and at the same time, the hire purchase agreement does not qualify the petitioner to attain the status of owner, particularly, in presence of such an agreement, which does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 46 of the Rules.
10. It is a matter of common knowledge that the buses, being plied on the roads, carries different names, which creates not only confusion in the public, but also would become very difficult for the State machinery to ascertain the responsibility of the owners of the vehicle, in case of any damage caused to the public on account of some accident or irresponsible conduct of the staff deputed on the buses by the owners. Prima-facie, such practice has been adopted and permitted to continue to be adopted, except by respondent No.2, who issued the impugned order to enforce the law in its real spirit and behind such implied permission by the government functionaries, it seems that the same is permitted for the convenience of not only the agencies created like the petitioner, but also with the connivance of the State machinery.
11. The act on the part of respondent No.2 is appreciable. It must not be end here. It is to be made an example for all others working in same capacities in all over the Province. The impugned action on the part of respondent No.2, which is challenged by means of this writ petition is upheld by dismissing this petition, which has no basis.
12. The Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, to whom a copy of this judgment be delivered, is required to direct all the Regional Transport Authorities in the Province and all other responsibles to launch a campaign for strict compliance of Rule 34(2) of the Rules in whole of the Province and to remove the illegalities, wherever same are being adopted in violation of such rule.
13. It is expected that the required exercise be completed within next sixty day, compliance report of which be furnished to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judicial).
14. With these observations, this petition having no force is dismissed.