' Riaz Ahmad, petitioner, proprietor of Madina Flying Coach Service, Burewala (District Vehari), has filed this writ petition, with a prayer that Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Multan, respondent No,1 be directed not to issue a certificate for establishment of a wagon stand by respondent No,2, Al-Barkat Travels Service, Lahore Road, Burewala, a concern owned by Muhammad Sharif, Mukhtar Ahmad, etc.
2. Assistant Commissioner, Burewala has submitted his comments and the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari has endorsed the same. The assertion of the petitioner is that the site, where Al-Barkat Travels Service, are carrying on their business does not belong the them, and by submitting a: forged document, they have laid a claim to it, has been found to be incorrect by the Assistant Commissioner, according to whom one Rehmat Ali had purchased an area of 8 Kanals 9 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra No,94/150-I, Burewala Town, on 26-9-91, in open auction, conducted by the Asistant Collector, Neeli Bar. Al Barkat Travels got a piece of land, measuring 10 Marlas, through sale, from Abdul Aziz Dogar, a legal heir of Rehmat Ali. Since the proprietary rights had not yet been conferred on Rehmat Ali, deceased, nor on any one of his legal heirs, following his death, the land in question continued to be shown in the name of the Provincial Government. In the column of ownership, in the `Jamanbandi' for the year 1988-89, the names of the rightful owners could not be incorporated, for technical reasons. The concerned authorities, having made this report with responsibility, I have no reason to doubt its correctness or authenticity. The requisite documents have been appended with the comments.
3. Chairman, Municipal Committee, Burewala had issued a special permit to Al-Barkat Travels Service, for running their business. They had filed a Writ Petition No,510/93 against the S.H.O. Police Station City, Burewala, who had been directed by this Court, vide order dated 9-2-1993, not to cause undue harassm ent to the petitioners and not to interfere with their business activity unlawfully. The S.H.O. has today appeared in connection with the aforesaid writ petition, to undertake that he would not meddle with the affairs. According to him the business has been going on, over a period of a couple of months, the same having been permitted by the Municipal Authorities. Madina Flying Coach Service has its wagon stand, closeby, having duly been sanctioned by the Regional Transport Authority (Annexure 'A). Obviously, there is business rivalry between the two concerns. Petitioners have addressed applications to the Deputy Commissioner and to the Commissioner for enquiry against Al-Barkat Travels, having tendered a forged document of title; and as already said, the Assistant Commissioner, Burewala, has conducted the enquiry and found the aforesaid allegation to be without substance. In the inter-linked Writ Petition No,510 of 1993, the Al-Barkat Travels have submitted a layout plan for raising structure and sheds for use as their offices and for facility of passengers, and they have also placed on record a no- objection certificate, issued by the Municipal Committee, Burewala, for establishment of their wagon stand. Of course, the requisite sanction, which may be treated as final, will be accorded by the Regional Transport Authority, comprising the Commissioner, The D.I.G. and S.E. Highway, with a Magistrate co-opted as its whole-time Secretary. Before giving sanction for such a stand, the.
Authority obtains information from all the concerned quarters, especially the Local Body, and satisfies itself about the credentials of the applicants. Police Department is also consulted; and it is made sure that there is going to crop up no law and order situation, no traffic problems, and there also takes place no encroachment on any body's private land, or on State land, or on municipal land. For the purpose, Al-Barkat Travels Service, claims to have made a move on as back as 22-10- 1992; and the case is being processed. This incidentally will also indicate how influential the proprietors of Al-Barkat Travels happen to be. According to the Madina Flying Coach Company, the Al-Barkat Travels people are favourites of the Executive and a local MNA and a Federation Minister are their supporters. It is amazing that still their case has been lying with the Regional Transport Authority over many months last; and so far, they have not been able to get final sanction. Now can it be assumed, therefore, as has been alleged by the petitioner (Riaz Ahmad of Madina Flying Coach Service), that the Officers concerned are bent upon abusing their authority and are going too out of the way in hastening to sanction a wagon stand for Al Barkat Travels?
4. The learned counsel has referred to provisions of section 84, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, section 80, Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, and rules 248 and 253 of the Rules enacted under the Ordinance, in the year 1969, in urging that District Magistrate is empowered to grant to a transport concern a parking place, in consultation with the S.P., and a local body can also lawfully act in that behalf, and make a determination as to whom the site proposed for the stand belongs and whether it would be proper to earmark it for use as a vehicle stand, and if it will not complicate the traffic problem or endanger public safety, convenience and comfort. Regional Transport Authority is the concerned body to make a final determination in the matter and for granting the necessary sanction to a transport concern.
5. Authority is seized of the matter and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the R.TA. can be stopped from proceeding in the matter. It is up to the petitioner to place its viewpoint before the Authority; and if the relevant rule or prevalent practice permits, the Authority may afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is exactly the same business which the two concerns are conducting. Now can the one be stopped from doing it; for if it is done, it will offend against the principle of equality before law. It is another matter that for administrative reasons and in public interest, the authority does not grant permission to a particular concern for establishing a stand at a specified spot. The petitioner cannot treat himself to be an aggrieved person, entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief available under Article 199 of the Constitution.
6. There is another aspect. Right of appeal, it appears, would be available to the petitioner, if the authority acts in derogation of public interest or in disregard of the relevant rules. In that view of the matter the writ must be treated to be premature, as also incompetent. Learned counsel for the respondent No,2(Al-Barkat Flying Coach Service) has relied upon a number of authorities, as 1976 SCM R 450 Mumtaz Hussain alias Bhutta v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore and another, 1985 SCM R 692 Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. Khalil Ahmad Anwar, Rent Controller Lahore and others, 1986 SCM R 1077/1208 Haji Muhammad Din v. Mst. Shaikla Begum and others, Muhammad Aslam Khan v. Atta Khan and others 1988 CLC 2317, Mst. Maasoom Bibi v.
Deputy Administrator (R.P.), Sialkot and others 1989 CLC 1387 Kh. Muhammad Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan 1990 CLC 271 (Muhammad Jafar Tarar v. District Magistrate, Gujranwala and others), principles of law enunciated wherein are applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. Considered from any angle, the writ petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.