' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting- aside the impugned orders dated 19.09.2016 and 27.01.2017 passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2014, respondent No, 3, Naghman Wasiq Chaudhry filed an application before respondent No, 2 wherein he submitted that he on 03.08.2013 sold out his vehicle No, JX-043 through an agreement to Jamshed Tahir (respondent No,6) for consideration of Rs, 5,000,000/-with the condition that he would not transfer/ sale the vehicle, unless the cheque issued by him is encashed. The cheque was bounced and FIR No, 94 was lodged at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad. He then, submitted that he had not handed over transfer letter to respondent No, 6 but the same was illegally transferred in the name of Saeed Younis and present petitioner. The Excise and Taxation Officer, Islamabad on the basis whereof, while initiating proceedings under sections 34 and 35 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, cancelled ownership of respondent No, 4 including the present petitioner and restored the same in the name of Naghman Wasiq Chaudhry (respondent No,3).
3. As per petitioner, he was the bona fide purchaser of the said vehicle which he had purchased on 14.10.2014 from Nadir Khan (respondent No, 5) for Rs, 42,00,000/- and on 11.12.2014 got transferred the vehicle in his name from Excise and Taxation Office, Islamabad by producing original documents and witnesses. Therefore, he filed an appeal before respondent No, 1 against the order date 19.09.2016. But it was also dismissed on 27.01.2017, hence, he has approached this Court through this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No, 2 has no jurisdiction under sections 34 and 35 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, to cancel registration of ownership; that the impugned order dated 19.09.2016 was passed when the restraining orders were in field; that the impugned order of cancellation was passed without issuing notice or providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have failed to mention any reason for alleging that transfer letter was fake and bogus; that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have acted by misusing their authorities, therefore the impugned orders be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders by stating that the same were rightly passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as the petitioner was not the bona fide purchaser, therefore, this writ petition be dismissed.
6. I have heard the arguments and perused the record made available.
7. From the record, it transpires that sale agreement was executed between one Naghman Wasiq Chaudhry (respondent No,3) and Jamshed Tahir (respondent No, 6) with specific condition that vehicle could not be transferred till realization of the cheque No, SA-32417686 mentioned in the agreement. Admittedly, the transfer letter was not yet signed by the original owner, Ch. Nagman Wasiq and the transfer was effected in the name of Malik Muhammad Ashraf after change of two hands of Jamshed Tahir and Muhammad Saeed Khan.
8. Earlier, the petitioner moved Writ Petition No, 330/2015 before this Court, after refusal of relief regarding handing over the custody of vehicle by the lower forum. This Court after observing the facts, dismissed the petition that it being triangular dispute with regard to the title of ownership could only be decided by the learned Civil Court.
9. Challenging the order of Excise and Taxation Officer dated 19.09.2016, through instant writ petition is therefore, an attempt to seek indirect declaration about the ownership of vehicle on the basis of forged documents as observed by the ETO. The ETO on observing facts of transfer on the basis of forged documents rescinded the earlier orders of transfer which is permissible under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The very order of transfer in favour of Muhammad Saeed Khan was ipso facto illegal and without any foundation.
10. The principle of locus poenitentiae do not come in way of rescinding the earlier orders, as order of transfer in favour of Muhammad Saeed Khan or anybody else was passed upon fraud as such cannot be protected by the principle of locus poenitentiae. In this regard, guidance is sought from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "2005 SCM R 1814". So far the title is concerned, civil suit has already been filed in which Excise and Taxation Officer has been cited at Serial No, 4, in which this issue would be decided after detailed probe by learned Civil Court.
11. From bare perusal of the record made available before the Court, it transpires that a group of cheater by using tactics, technically deprived the original owner of his vehicle as one purchased with condition and another by showing ETO form with forged signatures and on the basis whereof, got transferred the ownership in his favour and rapidly change many hands to create doubt about the title of original owner. Hence, in such eventuality, fraud perpetuated conjointly is surfaced on record. Therefore, technical relief cannot be granted merely for the reason that Excise and Taxation Officer has no power under sections 34 and 35 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 to cancel the ownership. Otherwise, such power of rescission always lies with the authorities who issued order having equal power to rescind the same.
12. Hence, in view of above observations, this petition merits no consideration, same is therefore, dismissed.