' The petitioners are transporters and their flying coaches ply between Pakpattan Sharif and other places. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority had sanctioned a 'D' class stand, to be established by the petitioners at Pakpattan. Chairman, Municipal Committee, Pakpattan had issued a 'No-Objection Certificate' in that regard, already on 1-10-1990. Subsequently on 20-10-1991, however the Chairman withdrew the no-objection certificate. That order was cancelled on 31-10- 1991; but again on 30-5-1992 the no-objection was withdrawn and the site plan was cancelled and close of the stand was recommended. Maintaining that the Regional Transport Authority alone was competent to sanction such wagon stand and the Municipal Authorities had nothing to do with it, the petitioners filed the present writ petition on 5-7-1992, with a prayer that the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Pakpattan be ordered not to interfere with their transport business and to close down their 'ID' class stand, which stood duly sanctioned.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the petitioners had themselves approached the Chairman, Municipal Committee Pakpattan for sanction of the stand and this development is not denied by them. They would therefore be estopped to plead that the Chairman does not figure in the picture anywhere. They have produced No-Ojection Certificate, initially on 1-10-1990 issued by the Chairman, Municipal Committee, allowing them to establish their wagon stand within the rented premises shown in the site plan submitted with their application, provided their business activity did not create traffic problems or amount to effecting encroachment. On municipal land and provided further that the party would pay toll tax and Adda fee. Subsequently the N.O.C. Was withdrawn, as the petitioners were found to have committed violation of rule 256 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969.
3. The petitioners have procured and placed on record a report recorded on 10-3-1990 by Mr. Shahid Nazir S.I. To the effect that with the establishment of the stand of Kashif Ansar Flying Coach Service no disturbance with normal flow of traffic would occur and the people would stand benefited. The Deputy Commissioner; Pakpattan had also signified his no-objection to establishment of the wagon stand in question, in a letter addressed to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, on 24-1-1991. The Secretary, R.TA., Multan passed the necessary orders on 19-11- 1991. The Chairman, Municipal Committee had earlier on 31-10-1991 passed an order reissuing the N.O.C., previously cancelled, on obtaining a report from the Sub-Engineer, Municipal Committee and on satisfying himself that the construction work of the wagon stand was in progress.
4. It is to be noted in this regard that the petitioners had given an assurance that they would complete their wagon stand structure and make arrangements to provide requisite facilities to the passengers, but they could not carry out their undertaking in time. With its miscellaneous application (C.M. No,1091 of 1992), submitted on 10-11-1992 by which the Municipal Committee had sought vacation of stay order granted by this Court on 7-7-1992, the applications seeking extension in time, for construction, made by the petitioners had been annexed. Surprisingly, however, now the petitioners are maintaining otherwise and are not prepared to submit to the authority of respondent No,1. The Motor Vehicles Rules require that the Government would, in consultation with the local authority, determine places where motor vehicles may stad permanently or stop for a transitory span. The wisdom of this provision cannot he questioned. If permission for setting up a wagon stand is granted, without such consultation, the same may come in conflict with a scheme of the local body or may otherwise have the effect of offending against public health and safety or traffic control. Permission granted by the District Magistrate, or by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, for parking of vehicles, without consultation of local authority, would constitute violation of requirements of section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, and rule 248 (Provincial Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969). Such consultation is indeed mandatory in nature. It has been so held by this Court in the cases reported as 1990 CLC 281 and 1990 CLC 271.
5. It was observed that consultation with MNAs, MPAs or police people could not partake character of consultation with authorities of the local body.
6. The writ petition thus has no merit and is hereby dismissed.