JAVED IQBAL, J.- This is a-Constitutional Petition preferred under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) on behalf of petitioner namely Abdul Razzaq with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore prayed that order impugned herein may kindly be ' declared illegal, unlawful without jurisdiction, of no legal effect and consequence and order dated 5.11.1992 passed by Secretary Regional Transport Authority Quetta may also be upheld and appeal filed by respondent No. 1 may also be dismissed. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded."
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Transporter and plies his carriage on Quetta-Ahmedon Gogi Route. The respondent No. 1 is also a Transporter, who plies his private carriage on Quetta Ahmedon Route and in this regard the time schedule has also been issued by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority. A Route Permit bearing No. 310/91 was sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Qasim (respondent No. 1) by Chairman Regional Chairman Authority, against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Chairman Provincial Transport Authority on 17-09-1992 on the ground that out Route Permit sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 1 was in violative of the relevant Provisions of Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) as the bus/carrier for which the above mentioned Route Permit was issued does not belong to respondent No. 1 and further more, that he could not arrange a carrier/Bus even during the stipulated extended period of 25 days and resultantly Route Permit was cancelled. The Route Permit No. 310/91 issued for Mazda Bus QAF-7 197 was cancelled on 05-12-1992 and an appeal, was to be filed within 30 days, which could not be done and on the contrary an appeal preferred under Section 66 of the Ordinance on 15.11.1993, which was hopelessly barred by time, but entertained by the Chairman Provincial Transport Authority, Quetta, which was accepted vide order dated 20-01-1994 by the Chairman Provincial Transport Authority. Being aggrieved of the said order this Constitutional Petition has been preferred.
3. It is mainly contended by Mr. Mohsin Javed Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to facts law as well as principle of natural justice, and thus not tenable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. It is next contended that the Route Permit of respondent No. 1 had been cancelled on 5.11.1992 in accordance with relevant Provisions as contemplated in Section 62 of the Ordinance, as inspire of various opportunities he could not arrange a new bus for Route Permit No. 310/91. It is further contended that no attention seems to have been paid to the requirement as mentioned under Section 48 and 49 of the Ordinance, before granting a Route Permit No. 310/91 to the petitioner. It is emphatically urged that the petitioner has not been impleaded as a party inspire of his written requests during the pendency of appeal filed by respondent No. 1 before respondent No. 2, thereby causing a serious prejudice and in-justice to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the Chairman Provincial Transport Authority has totally failed to observe the prescribed procedure in this regard, which amounts to an arbitrary exercise of discretion, which is not permissible under law. It is also argued that it was beyond the jurisdictional ambit of Chairman Provincial Transport Authority to entertain a time barred application without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing.
4. The above explained position has been strenuously controverted by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti Advocate, who argued with vehemence that the impugned order was neither arbitrary nor whimsical but' passed strictly in accordance with law. He also drew our attention to the definition of 'owner' as enumerated under Section 2 (24) of the Ordinance read with Rule 88 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969, whereby a procedure has been specified regarding the replacement of a vehicle or.
Purchase of new one, and contended that there was neither any malafide on the part of respondent No. 1 nor any factual position was ever concealed as alleged regarding the purchase of vehicle, but on the contrary an application for grant of extentions of time was submitted by respondent No. 1 in order to procure a new bus for plying on the route as covered by Route Permit No. 310/91. It is also contended that petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the impugned order by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and he could have availed of the other remedies as provided under the Ordinance. It is also pointed out that the Order dated 17.10.1993 whereby the Route Permit was cancelled is void, abinitio and hence it was rightly struck down by the Chairman Provincial Transport Authority and being a lawful order, it does not call for any interference.
5. We have carefully examined the respective, contentions as adduced on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 in the light of relevant Provisions of the Ordinance, Rules made thereunder and the record made available. We have carefully perused the order dated 17.10.1993, which is reproduce hereunder for ready reference:- "Subject:- CANCELLATION OF ROUTS PERMIT NO. 310/91 MEANT FOR QUETTA-AHMEDOON ROUTE Route Permit No. 310/91 covering Mazda Bus No. QAF-7197.
2. In this case you had been given 25 days time to produce an other bus in place of bus No. QAF- 7197 for Quetta-Ahmedoon route, which was not held in your own name. Consequent upon your failure to comply with the order, your Route Permit No. 310/91 was cancelled on 5th November, 1992.
As a result of an appeal in the Provincial Transport Authority, Baluchistan, there the case has been dismissed. You better seek remedy in the court of competent jurisdiction.
17-10-1993. Sd/- Secretary Regional Transport Authority"
A bare perusal would indicate that the Route Permit was cancelled on 5.11.1992 and the information was communicated on 17.10.1993 in flagrant violation of the prescribed procedure. The above referred to order itself is laconic and nonspeaking. No reasons whatsoever have been assigned for cancellation of the Route Permit. No doubt that respondent No. 1 could not comply the directions to arrange a vehicle within the stipulated period of 25 days, but it must not be lost sight of that an application of extension in the specified time was made, but the matter remained pending and un- attended for an indefinite period and respondent No. 1 all of sudden came to know vide letter dated 17.10.1993 as referred to above that his Route Permit was cancelled on 5.11.1992. The said cancellation was in violation of the Provisions as contemplated in Section 62 of the Ordinance, for the reasons that before passing the impugned order no opportunity of hearing was afforded nor respondent No. 1 was called upon to offer his explanation. It has also been observed with grave concern that he was never informed in time regarding cancellation of his Route Permit. We may point out that the communication of such an information is not merely a formality, but mandatory under Section 62 of the Ordinance. The impugned order was passed on 5.11.1992 and it was communicated on 17.10.1993, which is highly objectionable, on the one hand and in contravention of Section 62(2) of the Ordinance, which is re-produce hereunder for ready reference:- "62(2) Where a transport authority cancels or suspends a permit, shall record in writing its reasons for the cancellation or suspension and shall give a copy thereof to the holder of the permit."
6. A bare perusal of the above reproduced Sub Section (2) of Section 62 of the Ordinance, would make it clear that it is obligatory for the cancellation authority to deliver a copy of the cancellation order to the holder of Route Permit. The binding nature of the said Route Permit cannot be violated.
The object to incorporate such Provisions seems to enable an aggrieved person to approach next higher forum for the redressal of his grievances. We may point out that the Transport Authority being an independent Qasi/judicial authority is expected to act fairly in a reasonable manner and without any taint of perversity. It seems open to a grave question whether Secretary Regional Transport Authority could have kept an application un attended for an indefinite period, the answer would certainly be in negative. We have no hesitation to hold that in fact the order dated 17.10.1993 passed by Secretary Regional Transport Authority was in flagrant violation of the relevant Provisions ot the Ordinance, and can declare abinition void. The respondent No. 1 has spent a huge amount on the purchase of Vehicle, and therefore, cannot be deployed of his lawful right to ply the same on a route allocated in his favour for the sake of certain technicalities which can be ignored safely for the sake of substantial justice, fair play and equity. The order dated 20? 1-1994 passed by Chairman Provincial Transport Authority does not call for any interference being file from any illegality or serious irregularity. Besides that what has been stated above the petitioner could not satisfy us that he in fact is an aggrieved party. It is well settled by now that "a person aggrieved must be a person, who has suffered a legal grievance, a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of some thing, or wrongfully refused him some thing or wrongfully affected his title to some thing" (P.L.D. 1965 Dacca 231). In the case under consideration the petitioner has neither suffered a legal grievance nor wrongfully deprived of some thing nor his title affected as such in our considered view he cannot be declared as an aggrieved party and therefore, has no locus standi to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, which is to be exercised with great circumspection.
In view of what has been stated above, the petition is dismissed, which no order as to cost.