2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the bus belongs to the petitioner and its registration is in the name of the petitioner. It was illegally taken into possession and has been handed over to the respondent No.4 by respondent No.1 who is his friend.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that the bus has been given by the petitioner on hire-purchase agreement to the respondent No.4 who has been paying instalments and has obtained route permit. When it was being plied on a route permit wrongly obtained by the petitioner, the bus was impounded by the respondent No.1 and after looking into the facts of the case, the respondent No.1 has rightly directed the custody of the bus in favour of the said respondent No.4.
4. It is observed in the impugned order of the respondent No.1 that 'it is established that Muhammad Anwar Bhatti obtained the possession of bus not in the capacity of driver, conductor or the manager of the bus of Sheikh Mahboob Elahi but in a position more or less that of a bona fide purchase under hire-purchase agreement. Sheikh Mahboob Elahi did not lodge any F.I.R. Or adopted any other legal course against Muhammad Anwar Bhatti for the return of the bus for about more than 3 months. He has adopted a short cut course to snatch away the bus forcibly form Mr. Muhammad Anwar Bhatti and further sold it to Muhammad Tahir etc. Under the same conditions. As the route permit of the bus still remained with Muhammad Anwar Bhatti, Shaikh Mahboob Elahi again preferred to adopt a deceitful course by lodging a false information with Police Post General Bus Stand, Badami Bagh, Lahore, regarding the loss of the route permit and obtained another route permit on that basis. Subsequent route permit issued from this office under misrepresentation of facts is of no legal force, as the previous one is still valid upto 22-1-1986.
Subsequent route permit was, therefore, treated as cancelled vide my orders, dated 28-7-1985. The bus was impounded at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala since 23-7-1985. In case the bus is impounded for indefinite period it is likely to be damaged. It will be in the fitness of circumstances if custody of bus is handed over to either of the parties. For this purpose I have come to the conclusion that Muhammad Anwar Bhatti has got the preferential rights for the custody of the bus as he was a bona fide purchaser of the bus and route permit is also in his possession. As far as title of ownership is concerned it may be better determined by any Court of competent jurisdiction. It is undisputed that the registration of the bus was and is in the names of the petitioner and no document has been produced to show that he had ever transferred the bus. In the report submitted by respondent No.1 in para.5 it is stated that the 'petitioner and respondent No.4 attended the office of answering respondent and were heard at length. Petitioner did not produce any record in his support while respondent No. 4 has produced a copy of agreement regarding the purchase of the bus from Rashid Ahmad, photo copies of token tax paid by him for the period of third and fourth quarter of 1985, receipt of fine imposed by a Magistrate on 20-3-1985 and other documents to show that the bus was in his possession in the capacity of purchaser. Original documents were seen in the presence of petitioner and returned to respondent No.4 while photostat copies thereof were placed on the file'. The important document referred to is the copy of the agreement regarding purchase of the bus by the respondent No.4 from Rashid Ahmad. Now, how could Rashid Ahmad sell the bus to the respondent No.4 when he himself had not become owner of the bus by transfer thereof from the petitioner, for which there was and is no proof on the record? The basic and the authentic document was the registration which was in favour of the petitioner. If somebody else claimed ownership, it was for him to prove that. The bus had to be given to the rightful owner in whose favour official document existed. The respondent No. 1 had no right whatsoever to take away the bus registered in the name of the petitioner and hand it over to respondent No.4 who claimed ownership but did not produce proof. The order of the respondent No.1 was clearly arbitrary and so without lawful authority and of no legal effect. He should have handed over the custody of the bus to its original owner in whose favour was A the official document showing his ownership. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the respondent No.1, dated 10-8-1985 is clearly without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is so declared. The petition is thus allowed with costs to be paid by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 equally.