1. ' AJMAL MIAN, J.--By this common order we intend to dispose of the above three petitions. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petitions are as follows:-
(a) Constitutional Petition No,491 of 1984.
2. ' The petitioners are permit holders of certain buses for the route from Karachi to Sanghar Via Super Highway Tando Adam. It is the case of the petitioners that since no time schedule of the buses played by various route permit holders was framed, some of the permit holders filed Constitutional Petition No, D-884 of 1983. Upon the service of notice the learned Additional Advocate-General made a statement before this Court that the time schedule shall be fixed in near future and in view of the above statement the above petition was withdrawn, It has been averred that respondent No,2 i.e, the Regional Transport Authority, Karachi through its Chairman/Commissioner, Karachi framed time schedule on 14-12-1983 allowing the petitioners to ply during the night time which was being mala fide and illegal was challenged in this Court through Constitutional Petition No,955 of 1983. The petition was allowed by an order, dated 5-2- 1984 and it was held that the Secretary Transport to the Government of Sind and Ex-Officio Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority was the competent authority to frame the time schedule.
3. He was directed to fix the time schedule in accordance with law. In pursuance of the above direction, he fixed the time schedule on 9-4-1984 but some of the permit holders filed Constitutional Petition No, 342 of 1984. Upon the filing of the above petition the Chairman of the Provincial Transport Authority made certain variations in the above time schedule on 23-5-1984.
4. Upon the modification of the time schedule, dated 9-4-1984 the above Constitutional Petition No,342 of 1984 was withdrawn on 24-5-1984. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above modification have filed the present petition and have prayed for the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased:
(a) To adjust the time schedule in the manner whereby the buses of the petitioners can also enjoy the route permit in the day time with the shortest possible interval in terms of time as was being followed vide order, dated 14th December, 1983;
(b) To declare the action of the respondents to be illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, male fide and operating against the interest of the petitioneRs,
(c) To declare that the petitioners of Constitutional Petition No, 342 of 1984 cannot enjoy priority against the present petitioners and are to be placed on equal footings;
(d) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, and
(e) To grant costs of the petition. (b) Constitutional Petition No, 619 of 1984.
5. ' In this petition also the petitioners are route permit holders of carriage carrying on the routes starting from Karachi and terminating on different ends covering Roper Highway. It has been averred that in the month of April 1983 respondents Nos. 3 and 4 i.e, the Regional Transport Authority Karachi and the Regional Transport Authority Hyderabad and illegally unlawfully and unjustifiably recommended that the route Sanghar-Karachi via Tando Adam and Super Highway be classified for the grant of stage carriage permits in favour of private respondents Nos. 6 and 14.
6. It has been further averred that the above private respondents had filed Constitutional Petition No,884 of 1983 on 19-11-1983 which was taken up before a Division Bench on 28-9-1983 when the learned Additional Advocate-General on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 4 made a statement that the above respondents would prepare a time schedule and, therefore, the petition was withdrawn.
7. After that a time schedule was framed on 14-12-1984 which was challenged in Petition No,955 of 1983 on 17-12-1983. The above petition was allowed in terms of the above order, dated 5-2-1983 referred to hereinabove in para. 1(a) and a new time schedule was fixed on 9-4-1984 in terms of the above order, which was again challenged through aforesaid Constitutional Petition No,D-342 of 1984. After that the time schedule was again revised and been use of the above revision the above petition was withdrawn by the petitioners in the said case. The petitioners being aggrieved have filed the above petition and have prayed for the following reliefs: "it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
(i) To declare that the impugned order annexure-passed by the respondent No,5 (Secretary, Provincial Transport Authority, Sind Karachi) are male fide and unjust, unfair and having been passed without lawful authority and, therefore, of no legal effect since the said impugned orders are not tenable under the law and are passed in disregard and disobedience of the directions contained in the order, dated 5-2-1984 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Petition No, D-955/83.
(ii) To refrain the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 from implementing the impugned orders (time schedule) permanently by themselves or through their subordinates directly or indirectly or in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) To grant any such further relief/writ or directions which this Hon'ble Court may please deem fit and proper in view of the circumstances of the case, particularly keeping the three constitutional petitions mentioned above in view.
(iv) Costs of the petition may be ordered to be borne out by the respondents Nos. 5 to 14."
(c) Constitutional Petition No,661 of 1984.
8. ' The petitioners are the holders of route permit from Karachi to Sanghar via Hyderabad Super Highway and Tando Adam. It has been averred in this petition also that the time schedule was fixed on 14-12-1983 which was challenged through Constitutional Petition No,955/83 which was disposed of by an order, dated 5-2-1984 (wrongly mentioned as 5-8-1983 in the petition). In pursuance of the above order a new time schedule was fixed on 9-4-1984 and the same was amended on 23-5-1984 upon filing of Petition No, 342 of 1984. It has been averred that nine persons have been allowed time in the morning though the petitioners being senior were entitled to have early morning time. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased:
(a) To declare that the Petitioners of Constitutional petition No, 342 of 1984 cannot enjoy priority against the present petitioners and are to be placed on equal footings:
(b) To adjust the time schedule in the manner whereby the buses of the petitioners can also enjoy the route permit in the day time with the shortest possible interval in terms of time as was being followed vide order, dated 14th December, 1983.
(c) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, and
(d) To grant costs of the petition".
9. 2.In the above cases the admission notices were ordered to the Official respondents and to the private respondents who are parties in Petition No, 619 of 1984 in response to which Mr. Sattar Shaikh learned Additional Advocate-General has appeared for the official respondents and Mr. Syed Nasiruddin has put in appearance for the abovesaid private respondents in the aforesaid petition. On 24-10-1984 a Division Bench of this Court directed the petitioners to file statement indicating the prejudice caused by the amendment of the time schedule on 23-5-1984. In Petition No,499 of 1984 in the statement filed it has been stated that the gap of Sanghar group buses going to and coming from Sanghar be reduced from 40 minutes to 8 minutes in order to enable the transporters to have one round trip each day.
10. ' In Petition No, 619 of 1984 a statement containing the detail of the departure times from Karachi prior to the amendment on 23-5-1984 and after the amendment have been indicated which indicates that the adjustment of time from about 20 minutes to about one hour. Whereas no such statement has been filed in Petition No,661 of 1984 and it was stated by Mr. Munawar Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners that the above amendment in the time schedule on 23-5-1984 has not disturbed the time of the petitioners buses.
3. In support of the above petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners have urged as follows:
(i) That since the time schedule, dated 9-4-1984 was fixed in pursuance of the directions given by this Court by an order, dated 5-2-1984 in Constitutional Petition No, 955 of 1983, the same could not have been amended on 23-5-1984.
(ii) That the time should be allocated to the various route permit holders according to the seniority of their route permits which has not been done in the above time schedule, dated 23-5-1984.
11. 4.As regards the above first contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be observed that it was originally contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the re-adjustment on 23-5-1984 was made by the Secretary of the Provincial Transport Authority and not the Chairman. The above position has been denied by the Official respondents and it has been averred in the comments filed by them, that adjustment, dated 23-5-1984 has been made in pursuance of the directions given by the Chairman of the Provincial Transport Authority. In this view of the matter the above contention that the adjustment was made by the Secretary is not sustainable. It was then contended that once the time schedule was framed on 9-4-1984 in pursuance the above order in the aforesaid Petition No,955 of 1983, the same could not have been revised on 23-5-1984. In support of the above con tension no provision of law or rule was cited. In our view, the Chairman who had framed the above time schedule on 9-4-1984 was competent in law to revise the same. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the corresponding sections, namely, sections 13 and 20 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956. It may be observed that section 14 provides that whereby any Central Act or Regulation power is conferred then unless a different intention appears that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. Whereas section 21 provides that where by any Central Act or Regulation power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any, to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders rules or bye-laws so issued.
5. Advertising to the second contention, it may be pertinent to reproduce Rule 89 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 which reads as follows: "80. Regulation of arrival and departure of stage carriages-Here stage carriage permits issued under section 50 in respect of stage carriage services contain regulations for the timings of arrival or departure of stage carriage in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 50 save with the permission in writing of the Regional Transport Authority issuing any such permit, not more than one stage carriage at a time in any service shall be permitted to arrive or depart from any particular place in accordance with such regulation."
12. It may be noticed that the above quoted rule does not provide that the times of arrival or departure of the stage carriages are to be framed on the basis of seniority of the route permit holders nor there is any other provision in the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 to that effect. In the absence of any statutory provision the petitioners cannot maintain a writ petition for claiming any particular timings.
13. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this was the practice which was followed by the department. In our view, an alleged practice without backing of a statutory provision cannot be enforced through a constitutional petition. If the official respondents have unnecessarily or for extraneous consideration hay shown favour to any route permit holders, the proper remedy for an aggrieved party is to agitate the question before the higher authority either in the form of an appeal, if competent or by a representation. The constitutional jurisdiction cannot be pressed into service unless the violation of some provision of law or statutory rules is shown or I is shown that the order is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. There are hundreds of route permit holders and, therefore, in constitutional petition the question what time is to be allocated to who cannot be adjudicated upon unless there is some statutory provision formula for allocation of the times.
14. ' The above petition has, therefore, no merit and the same are dismissed in limine.