' Regional Transport Authority, Multan, by an order, dated 13-11-1993, refused to grant requisite licence to Muhammad Sharif and Mukhtar Ahmad, proprietors of Al-Barkat Travel Service, Burewala, for running their D-Class Wagon Stand, on the Lahore Road, Burewala, District Vehari, and they have challenged the vires of the order by filing this writ petition.
2. The petitioners claim having purchased a plot, measuring 10 Marlas, from one Abdul Aziz son of Rehmat Ali, through a registered agreement of sale dated 6-7-1991, for a huge consideration of Rs,5,80,000. Actually Rehmat Ali had purchased 8 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land, comprised in Khasra 94/15-1, Burewala Town, in open auction conducted by the Colony Assistant/Collector, Nili Bar, Pakpattan Sharif. He died; and the land devolved on his legal heirs, including Abdul Aziz.
Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 (Annexure "A") has been tendered to establish this assertion.
Agreement of sale is Annexure "B". Affidavit given by Abdul Aziz, owner alien or of the land, stating that he has no objection to establishment of wagon stand is Annexure "C".
3. The Assistant Commissioner Burewala recommended the case for grant of N.O.C, and the same was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari. The same is Annexure "F". Chairman, Municipal Committee, Burewala and the Superintendent of Police, Vehari also issued no-objection certificates, the same being Annexure F-1 and Annexure "G". The S.E. Highways similarly signified no objection to the petitioners' plan; and they have actually been operating an Adda" at the spot.
4. The R.T.A. Multan has kept the matter pending over a long time, and has not decided it, since beginning of the year 1993. This has been done, according to the petitioners, under political influence of a local M.NA. Antagonist disposed towards them, and owing to opposition of other owners of wagon stands, who out of professional jealousy are seeking to obstruct the emergence of a modern wagon stand of the petitioners, as the same will cause a set back to their business interests. There the petitioners do not seem to be incorrect, as one Riaz Ahmad, claiming to be proprietor of Madina Flying Coach Service, Burewala, had filed a Writ Petition (No,785 of 1993), on 25-2-1993, against the R.T.A. Multan and Al-Barkat Travel Service. Their petition was dismissed by this Court by an order passed on 5-4-1993. The writ petitioner there had attributed mala fides to Messrs Al-Barkat Travel Service. Through C.M. No,25/94, same Riaz Ahmad of Madina Flying Coach Service Burewala has sought to implement as a party to the proceedings of the present writ petition, under Order I, Rule 10, read with section 151, C.P.C. He has however, no business to meddle with working of Messrs Al-Barkat Travel Service. Although their business is the same they have to fight for their cause in exercise of their own independent right. Their entitlement cannot be obstructed or thwarted by any rival business concern. Of course, it will be up to the Authorities concerned to see to it, if there is real requirement of any additional wagon stand, and if the new- comer fulfils the requisite conditions and will also create the problem for the Administration. This has duly been considered, and all the concerned departments have okayed the establishment of a D-Class Wagon Stand by the petitioners in Burewala town. That being the position, the request made by the Madina Flying Coach Service for becoming a party to the proceedings may not be acceded to, for their presence will not be of any assistance to this Court for arriving at a correct conclusion, in disposing of the instant writ petition. The C.M. Is therefore, rejected.##TE#
5. It is indeed uncommon for such a case lingering on over that long time. The only objection raised was that the person, from whom the petitioners had purchased the plot, did not probably have a rightful title, which he could lawfully pass on. In that behalf, the report submitted by the A.C. Is of relevance. He says that it is only for a technical reason that the Provincial Government continues as owner in the record-of-rights, but practically the land vested in the name of Rehmat Ali, who had validly purchased it in open auction, and one of whose legal heirs, Abdul Aziz, following former's death, had transferred, by way of sale, 10 Marlas of land in favour of the writ-petitioners. The report is in detail and is Annexure "J".
6. Incidentally it may be pointed out that the Madina Coach Service is also running its business of similar kind, and there appears to be in existence business rivalry between the two concerns. This Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No,785 of 1993, had observed that it would offend against principle of equality before law, if one concern is prevented from carrying on its business and the other is permitted to do so. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners rightly points out that whereas the rivals are flourishing on the strength of orders of the High Court, and without possessing the necessary qualifications, the petitioners are being prevented from operating alike, although they are in enjoyment of no-objection certificates issued by all those concerned. Only the R.TA. Is finding itself "stultified" and is hesitanmo take a decision, under political pressure and for extraneous considerations. ##TE#Order passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No,785 of 1993, had been assailed by way of an Infra-Court Appeal, which too was dismissed. It seems that the Madina Flying Coach Service are the people who are being obstructive in the way of the writ petitioners to have a smooth sailing, and the authorities are not really averse to granting them the requisite license, since they have fulfilled all the pre-conditions and have provided all the facilities to the passengers, and there is no complaint, from any quarter, in so far as operation of the wagon stand in actual, practice is. Concerned. The ground, given by the R.TA. In rejecting the application of the petitioners, namely, the land not belonging to the petitioners, or to the person, from whom they claim to have purchased it, is, on the face of - it, not available. It seems certain that discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioners, and they are being exposed to a colossal Monetary loss and an irretrievable injury, by being refused right to run the stand, although they have invested enormously on the project. Political pressure must not be permitted to have its sway, and the Authorities must take an independent decision in conformity with the relevant rules, and in consonance with the C Constitutional rights and privileges of the petitioners, as common citizens of the State. It is a misfortune that in our country unscrupulous politicians inter-meddle in every sphere of national activity and dictate day to day or king of every department. Learned counsel representing the R.TA. Has not been able to point out any flaw in the set up of the petitioners, and any lapse on their part, disentitling them to operate their wagon stand. I proceed to accept the writ petition and quash the impugned order, dated 13-11-1993, passed by the respondent against the petitioners.