' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos,8150 of 1992, 8240 of 1992, 8239 of 1992, 8219 of 1992, 8234 of 1992 and 8215 of 1992, involving identical questions of law and facts.
2. The petitioners, who are transporter and owners of auto workshops, had applied for and had been issued licences to perform the function of motor vehicle examiners, competent to issue fitness certificates, in respect of motor vehicles, in their respective regions, as provided under section 35 (1) ((b), Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969. It is pleaded that lass of rupees were spent on renovation of their workshops and expansion of the premises, where the workshops are housed, so as to bring them in conformity with the requirements of the Regional Transport Authority. Initially a sum of Rs,5,000 was deposited as security and this was enhanced to Rs,15,000 in the current year, and the deposit of the said amount was also made. Annual licence fee was also raised from Rs,1,000 to Rs,3,000; this money too was paid. Although, as pleaded, the petitioners having been working within the frontiers as defined by law, and in accordance with the conditions laid down, without any complaint from any quarter, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Faisalabad, asked them by a letter issued on 25-8-1992 to stop issuance of fitness certificates. This letter is said to have been addressed in pursuance of an order of the preceding day, conveyed by the Secretary, Provincial Transport Authority, Lahore, requiring different Regional Transport Authorities in the Province, to ask the owners of Automobile Workshops to suspend the activity forthwith.
3. These orders are sought to be declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and a prayer in that behalf has been made by the .Petitioners, invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as no other remedy is available, as has been averred.
4. Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate-General, representing the respondents, has come out with a categorical assurance that the Authorities shall act strictly in accord with the legal provisions and the Rules on the subject, and no mala fides, whatsoever, will be involved in the entire exercise or process to be embarked upon, in undoing the existing arrangements and requiring the petitioners to stop acting as motor vehicle examiners, on private plane. The assurance, given in open Court by the learned Additional Advocate-General, however, does not seem to have satisfied the petitioners, who apprehend that the Regional Transport Authority will not act in accordance with the undertaking, but will carry out the direction conveyed by the Provincial Transport Authority, and there is little likelihood that the proceedings will be taken in an independent and dispassionate, just and fair manner. Rather, according to them, it would be a province-wide action, carried out in a vindictive and ruthless fashion, regardless of legitimate interests of the petitioneRs, It is urged that in accordance with the rules of locus poenitentiae, a right that has accrued to a juristic person cannot be taken away to his prejudice, and as is so well known, principle of natural justice must be read in and taken to be an integral part of every legislation and the same would warrant that an adequate opportunity ought to be afforded to a person or an organization proposed to be proceeded against.
5. I find that this is even a requirement of the Rules, as is envisaged by rule 35, sub-rules (10) and 11). Rule 35-B contemplates that before passing an order of cancellation of the requisite licence, the licensee shall be given an opportunity of being heard. Although the Regional Transport Authority granting the licence is empowered to suspend or cancel the licence, at any time, but for that eventuality also there is a prerequisite. There has to be a contravention of any condition of the licence on the part of the licensee. Such contravention has not been made known to the petitioners, and the impugned orders are thus not speaking ordeRs, It appears that there has been general and widespread complaint against such auto-mobile workshops, acting for furtherance of their selfish ends and monetary gains, oblivious of public interest, similarly as there had earlier been wild grumbling against working of Motor Vehicle Examiners appointed by the Government, and the Authorities were constrained to take action. That end could be achieved, but in a lawful manner and while acting in consonance with principles of equity, fairplay and justice and not otherwise.
6. I do not find myself inclined to uphold the contention put forth by the learned counsel that the orders having been passed in violation of the requirement, as enjoined by Rule 56, prescribing a minimum quorum of two members, besides the Chairman, or his nominee, and excluding the Secretary. Rules 55 and 56 provide a clear indication to the effect that the Provincial Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority is not the name for a sole officer or public servant, but it denotes constitution of a body, acting collectively. Rules 35 and 35-B leave no doubt about the fact that the Regional Transport Authority, granting such licence, is competent to rescind it. The decision must have been taken by the Authority, and it only appears to have been conveyed by its Secretary, through the impugned letter.
7. There is, however, no escape from the inference that the licence has not just been suspended, and the letters dated 24th and 25th of August, 1992, tantamount to rescission of the earlier orders dated 22-4-1988, which orders have been withdrawn, and the licensees have been ordered to stop working as private auto-mobile workshops eligible to issue fitness certificates. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General that fulfilment of this pre-condition has not be insisted upon, for temporary suspension of the licence, as it has to be done in case of its cancellation, thus, would be without force, since there is no manner of doubt about the consequences that would entail. Licensed and lawful business activity of the petitioners has been die-ended, without revealing the reasons for the action, and without affording them an opportunity of being heard, which was a condition precedent, as envisaged by rule 35, sub-rule (10) and rule 35-B.
8. The impugned orders being violative of the aforesaid rules of imperative character have, therefore, to be declared to be without lawful authority and unenforceable. Contravention of conditions of the licence must be made known to the licensee, who also must be afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing, before final orders, on going through the requisite exercise, in an objective manner, are passed by the competent authority.
9. In some of the cases, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that licences have already expired and have not been renewed. The learned counsel appearing for those petitioners has placed before the Court the challan forms, showing that the licence fee has been deposited, and it is urged, with certain amount of force, that such deposits were made when the challan forms were duly endorsed by the authorised officials, and it is also stated at the Bar that the Commissioners/Chairman of the Regional Transport Authorities have actually passed the orders renewing the licences, although the same are being suppressed or withheld purposely by the respondents, so as to deprive the petitioners of the relief that they are otherwise entitled to have from this Court.
' For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are hereby allowed, and in consequence the impugned orders are declared to be without lawful C authority and of no legal effect, although it will be open to the respondents to make fresh orders in a lawful manner.