This petition calls in question the validity of orders dated 5-12-1994 and 13-2-1995 passed by Regional Transport Authority, Lahore and Punjab Provincial Transport Authority, Lahore, whereby permit for establishment of D-Class wagon/bus stand at Kasur was granted to respondent No.3 and affirmed in appeal.
2. The petitioner is a holder of D-Class wagon/bus stand at Kasur. Respondent No.3 made an application to respondent No.2 for establishment of another. D-Class wagon/bus stand near railway station. The application of respondent No.2 was objected to by the. Railway as is apparent in letter dated 15-12-1993 by the Inspector of Works, Pakistan Railway, Kasur. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Kasur also opposed the idea of establishment in D-Class stand as is evident by parawise comments filed by him in Writ Petition No.1695 of 1993. According to the Senior Superintendent of Police the place of parking proposed by respondent No.3 near railway station was thickly populated place and it would create lot of nuisance and law and order problem if respondent No.3 was allowed to start his wagon stand. The City Magistrate, Kasur also submitted report dated 29-12-1993 to the Assistant Commissioner against establishment of this wagon stand near railway station. It was also reported that respondent No.3 had illegally established one room at the proposed site to be used as wagon halting point, which was demolished being illegal construction. The Municipal Committee, Kasur by its letter dated 19-12-1993 strongly opposed the sanctioning of D-Class stand licence to respondent No.3 near Railway Station, Kasur.
3. It was on 30-1-1994 that father of respondent No.3 submitted an application and obtained an order dated 30-1-1994 from Chief Minister, Punjab approving issuance of licence in his favour being properietor of A.I Adnan Dogar Travel Service, Kazur. It was in pursuance of the order of Chief Minister that Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police submitted the reports favourble to respondent No.3.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that orders dated 5-12-1994 and 13-2-1995 passed by respondents Nos.2 and 1 respectively are not sustainable for the reasons that they were not passed by independent application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the. Case. It is further submitted that requirement of Rule 253(2) and Rule 255 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 were not complied with. It was argued that the local authorities i.e. Municipal Committee, Kasur was not consulted which was mandatory provision of law and that in any case the Municipal Committee had opposed the grant of licence. The learned counsel further stated that the exercise of powers by the Regional Transport Authority under the dictation of Chief Minister, Punjab was not sustainable and that the basic order being void all the superstructure including the impugned order dated 13-12-1995 passed by the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority was invalid.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents has stated that the petitioner was not aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution. He referred to the cases of Majlis Intazamia, Masjid Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Lyallpur v. The Secretary, Government of West Pakistan Communication and Works Department PLD 1967 Lahore 709), Ch, Muhammad Yunus v.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1972 Lahore 847), Muhammad Boota and 77 others v. The Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and 2 others (PLD 1973 Lahore 580) and Rashid A.
Khan v. West Pakistan Railway Board (PLD 1973 Lahore 733). It was further stated that the licence granted to answering respondent No.3 was being renewed annually and that -no exception could be taken to the course adopted by Regional Transport Authority and- the appeal of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by respondent No. 1.
6. The learned A.A.-G. Supports the position taken up by the learned counsel for respondent No.3.
7.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. With the establishment of another wagon/bus stand naturally the business interests of petitioner were adversely affected.
The cancept of aggrieved person has undergone a significant change during the recent years and strict view is no longer to be taken in such cases. See the case of Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another (PLD 1969 SC 223) and Mr. Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust. Rewalpindi (PLD 1965 Supreme Court 698). In these cases it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if a person was likely to gain advantage he would not be non-suited for want of locus standi. The concept of being aggrieved person has been libralized in case of Abdul Hafiz Peerzada v. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1990 Karachi 9). The objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 is, therefore, not tenable.
8. There is another important aspect of this case. The Regional Transport Authority acted in mechanical fashion without consulting and obtaining considered view of Municipal Committee, Kasur being a local authority. This was a mandatory requirement as provided by Rule 252(2) of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969. Not only that other relevant considerations as laid down in A Rule 255 were not taken into consideration by respondent No.2 before granting licence to respondent No.3.
Respondent No.2 was required to act reasonably, fairly and honestly. In any case the mandatory requirement of meaningful consultation and consideration of the view of local authority i.e Municipal Committee, Kasur were not satisfied. The grant of licence to respondent No.3 was an act which was without lawful authority. The impugned order dated 13-2-1995 in continuation of order dated 5-12-1994 passed by the Appellate Authority also falls to the ground. See the cases of Yousaf A.I v. Muhammad Aslam Zia (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 104) and the case of Muhammad Amir v. The State (PLD 1971 SC 124). I have also noticed the attitude of the Superintendent of Police, Kasur and the then Deputy Commissioner, Kasur having abruptly changed after Chief Minister had passed order on 30-1-1994 approving the issuance of licence of D-Class bus-stand to Sardar Muhammad Hayat Dogar, father of respondent No-3, proprietor of A.I Adnan Dogar, Travel Agency. Not only that the Road Transport Authority readily acted in accordance with direction issued by the then Chief Minister, Punjab. The Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 or the Rules made there under did not authorise to the Chief Minister to pass such like orders for issuance of licence. Respondent No.2 while granting licence in accordance with the direction of Chief Minister acted without .S lawful authority as it was a case of dictated exercise of powers and not independent discharge of function. Such an exercise of powers under the direction of higher authorities has been held to be invalid in a number of cases decided by the higher Courts of Pakistan and outside. See the cases of Syed Fayyaz Hussain Qadri, v. The Administrator, Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1972 Lahore 316) Aman Ullah Khan and others v. The Federal Government of Pakistan (PLD 199CrSC 1092) and M/s. H.M. Abdullah v. The Income Tax Officer, Circle V. Karachi (1993 SCMR 1195) at page 1200. Also see the case of Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 100) or Orion Papers Mills v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 1498). In case of Saem Labour Union Ltd. v. The Ministry of Labour (1946) 2 All ER 201, the. Court invalidated the reinstatement order by the competent authority, but having been passed under the direction from the Minister and the same was considered not to be in exercise of personal discretion by the competent statutory authority. In another case of Roncarelli v. Puplessis (1959) 16 DLR 2nd 689, Supreme Court of Canada invalidated the order of and awarded damages against, the Prime Minister of Quebec for having given instructions to the Licencing Authority to cancel a licence.
9. The orders passed by the Road Transport Authority as well as by the Provincial Transport Authority are liable to be struck down. In this view of the matter the impugned orders dated 5-12- 1994 and 13-2-1995 passed by C respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively are declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.