SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: --The Petitioner, a transporter plying bus between Quetta and Samungli under a route permit, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 3-4-1989 whereby the cancellation of the route permit on the same route granted to the respondent No.1 was set aside.
2. The respondent applied for route permit for bus bearing registration No.KL-663 for plying between Quetta and Samungli. A route permit was granted on 22-6-1986 bearing No.55 of 1986.
There arose a dispute between the transporters already plying on the route and the respondent with regard to the necessity and the timing of the running of the buses. A suspension order was passed on 3-7-1986 followed by cancellation of the permit on 10-3-87 and the cancellation was upheld in appeal and by the Board of Revenue.
3. The allegations against the respondent were that he had misrepresented in obtaining the route permit; that after obtaining the route permit he had substituted the bus without the permission by another QAC-2278 and that for various other reasons not relevant to the grant of permit and its enjoyment he was undeserving of it. As there was factual controversy and the departmental authorities had not resolved it before passing the cancellation order, the High Court called for the record and according to the view formed by the High Court full record was not produced before it.
One instance of the factual controversy would be clear from the following observations made in the two appellate orders with regard to the respondent having substituted vehicle QAC-2278 without permission or intimation to the Authority concerned. The Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority, recorded the following observation:----- "Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that the petitioner was given a route permit to ply a Vehicle No.KL-663 on Quetta-Samungli route. According to the admitted facts the petitioner wanted to replace the vehicle and actually applied for its replacement with vehicle bearing No.QAC-2278:"
Final appellate authority/the Member, Board of Revenue on the same subject recorded as hereuner:--- "After having received the route permit, the appellant brought on road wagon No.QAC-2278 instead of KL-663. The appellant neither informed the Transport Authority nor took permission for exchange of the wagon which was necessary under the law."
4. Since the decision in the matter by the High Court an authoritative pronouncement of the question of grant of route permit has been made by this Court in the case of Malik Niaz Muhammad v. Provincial Transport Authority and others 1989 SCMR 79. The law having been so clearly laid down there remains no other question of law requiring further examination in these proceedings. We find that since the judgment of the High Court, the respondent, is plying the bus on the route to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, it is not a fit case for leave to appeal which is hereby refused.