1. IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J---Precisely the facts are, that petitioner Nasrullah son of Habibullah, being owner of Public Carrier, obtained a Route Permit No,883 of 1996 dated 15th May, 1996, for plying Bus on the Route i,e, Saigi-Quetta via Said Hamid Qandeel, issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. The Respondent Jaffarullah also obtained Route Permit No,863/96 for Saigi-Quetta via Killi Qandeel Killi Faqiran, route, for plying his Mazda Bus. The grievance of petitioner is that respondent had initially obtained the Route for his bus, starting point of which was from Quetta to Saigi and not from Saigi to Quetta, but later on by manipulation, he got it changed vice versa i,e, Saigi-Quetta instead of Quetta-Saigi. Therefore, for cancellation of Route permit, from the name of Respondent No,3, an appeal was preferred by him before the Provincial Transport Authority, who dismissed the same on 22nd January, 1997, as such, petitioner preferred a constitutional Petition being No,150 of 1997, which was partially allowed on 15th May, 1997, and case was remanded to the Provincial Transport Authority, for fresh decision of appeal, after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned. On remand, the official Respondent, vide impugned order dated 1st October, 1997, dismissed the appeal. As such, instant petition has been filed.
2. Mr. K.N. Kohli, learned Counsel for petitioner, argued that respondent tampered with the official record and changed the route, in the application, submitted by him, by cutting/over-writing, to make it an application for grant of route permit, from Saigi to Quetta and not from Quetta to Saigi, in respect whereof, original application was filed. The respondent Jaffarullah is a Government servant, therefore, he cannot be granted route permit, for the purpose of running the business.
3. ' On the other hand, Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned counsel, contended that the Appellate Court summoned the original record from the office of Secretary, RTA, and on examining the same, concluded that the Route permit was granted to respondent for Saigi to Quetta and not from Quetta to Saigi. The factual controversy has been settled down by consulting the record, therefore, interference by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, perhaps would not be permissible, in the interest of justice. As for as the grievance of petitioner that respondent is a Government Servant, therefore, he cannot be granted route permit for running business, is concerned, the petitioner has already been asked to approach the department for initiating of any action against him.
4. Official respondent-Secretary, RTA, opposed the petition being barred by laches.
5. No one appeared on behalf of Provincial Transport Authority.
6. We have heard the parties; counsel and have also considered their respective arguments carefully.
7. It would be appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow the relevant para. of impugned order:-- "After hearing the counsels, I perused the record of RTA in presence of both the counsels. No doubt that some cutting/over-writing/additions exist in the application prior to issue of permit. It also perused the original order passed by the Chairman, RTA in his own handwriting which is clear that route permit was sanctioned for Saigi-Quetta. It has also been observed that there is no cutting/overwriting etc. in the original Route Permit No,863/96-RTA dated 1-4-1996, issued to respondent for Saigi-Quetta via Qandil. It has also been proved that the petitioner was not a permit holder when permit was granted to respondent for Saigi-Quetta. He was granted permit later on, however he can raise objection when he was not in field at that time. As regards issue of route permit to Government servant, counsel for petitioner failed to mention relevant section of Motor Vehicle Ordinance/Rules. However, he referred to Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1970, which cannot help him in this case because the department has issued NOC in his favour. Further if any violation is occurred, he may approach the department for action against him under that rules. The third issue i,e, principle of first come first serve stands decided because the respondent has been granted permit earlier and his Bus has been given the time of departure earlier to that of applicant."
8. In the light of above findings, we feel no difficulty in holding, that irrespective to the fact; whether application was submitted by respondent for permit in respect of Saigi-Quetta or quetta-Saigi route, but the fact remains that vide order, dated 2nd April, 1996, Route Permit No,863/96-TRA, dated 1st April, 1996, was issued in his favour for Saigi-Quetta via Kandeel route. Apparently there is no tampering, as for as the actual route permit is concerned. Moreover, this question has been decided by the Provincial Transport Authority, by making reference to the original record, which was made available to him by the RTA, therefore, in exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction, this factual controversy cannot be settled down, by this Court, merely on the assumption that on basis of the facts, alleged by petitioner, a different view can be taken, holding thereby that respondent had committed forgery/manipulation, in the application submitted by him, for the issuance of Route permit in his favour.
9. As regards the second contention of petitioner, Mr. K.N. Kohli, Advocate, referred to Rule-16 of the Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1979, according to which, private re-employment or work by a Government Servant is prohibited, except with the previous sanction of the Government. This rule further lays down that non-Gazetted Government Servant, may without such sanction, undertake a small enterprise which absorbs family labour and, where he does so, shall file details of the enterprise alongwith the declaration of assets. In view of this provision, it was incumbent upon the petitioner, to have placed convincing material on record, to establish; whether respondent is a Gazetted or non-Gazetted Government Servant, and what are the assets in respect whereof, he has started the business of transport. Additionally, the Provincial Transport Authority had already observed in the impugned order that as for as the West Pakistan Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965, or the Rules framed thereunder, are concerned, there is no such prohibition, as contended by learned counsel for petitioner, for granting the Route Permit. It has also been observed that the department has issued N.O.C. in favour of respondent, which means that compliance of Rule-16 has been duly made. Therefore, if petitioner is still not satisfied, he can approach the concerned department for initiation of disciplinary action against him.
10. No other point was argued by petitioner's counsel.
11. For the foregoing reasons, we see no 'merit in petition, which is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.