' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--By this petition, the petitioners have called in question the refusal, by the Regional Transport Authority (respondent No,3), to issue fitness certificate to their Mini-buses and Coaches on the ground that they have failed to instal barrier/partition in-between ladies and gents seats.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of petition are that the petitioners, the owners of valid route permits, ply their Mini-buses and Coaches from various points on 35 routes. The owners of vehicles were issued certificates of fitness on the basis of registration documents under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) being renewable from year to year. The case of the petitioners further is that as usual they applied for renewal of the certificates of fitness somewhere in 1997 and were surprised to receive the intimation vide Form CFX, whereby the Authority suspended their certificates of fitness till fixing of the partitions/barriers in-between ladies and gents seats in their vehicles. It is further mentioned that the said decision was taken behind their back and without affording them an opportunity of being heard, as such the same is without lawful authority. In the petition, the petitioners have stated that their vehicles are 25 seaters and 15 seaters and in fact four seats on the front side behind the driver seat are reserved for ladies and technically it is not possible to instal a partition in the small and narrow space as is done in the larger buses. The petitioners were also verbally informed that the said decision is taken in pursuance of the order of the Provincial Ombudsman directing respondent No,3 to have the partition separating ladies and gents seats installed.
3. Dr. Riaz Ahmad Siddiqi, Secretary of R.T.A., Karachi in his counter-affidavit to the petition has maintained that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons as the vehicles as well as route permits stand in the names of some other persons. This fact they have not disclosed in the petition, have not come with clean hands and have concealed the material facts. Along with the counter affidavit copies of route permits have been filed.
4. The petitioners in their rejoinder to the counter-affidavit denied the averments to be true and submitted that by virtue of having purchased the vehicles from the original owners, they have locus standi to file the aforesaid petition.
5. Inter alia, it is contended by Mr. Abdul Qadir Siddiqi, counsel for the petitioners that there is no rule which provides for allocation of separate seats of ladies in Mini-buses and Coaches. He refers to rule 182 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which according to him relates to seating of passengers alone in public service vehicles. He further argued that Form CFX refusing to renew the certificates shows that action has been taken under the provisions of Chapter V of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and rules framed thereunder which are no longer an existing law and has been repealed by the Ordinance. As such the purported action is of no legal effect. The learned counsel further urged that the respondent No,3 while cancelling the said certificates of fitness failed to record the reasons in writing as such not only violated the principles of natural justice but also the mandatory provisions laid down under subsection (3) of section 39 of the Ordinance.
6. Mr. Naraindas C Motiani, learned Additional A.-G., Sindh, vehemently refuted the contentions of the petitioners' counsel and maintained that rule 73(3) of the Rules speaks of reserved seats for lady standing passengers in stage carriages and no male passenger shall stand in that portion. He further argued that pro forma of the permit produced by him indicates that one of the conditions for grant of such permit, as contained in clause 26, is that partition between the ladies and gents compartment was to be provided by closing the two compartments permanently. He further referred section 64 of the Ordinance and argued that no owner of transport vehicle is authorised to use the vehicle, in any public place except in accordance with the conditions of the permit issued by the competent authority. He submitted that respondent No,3 in the above circumstances was competent enough to suspend/cancel the route permits of the petitioners. Irrespective of this he argued that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have not availed the alternative remedy of filing an appeal provided in law.
7. For proper appreciation of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we feel it appropriate to refer the applicable provisions of the Ordinance and Rules relating to stage carriage and conditions for grant of permits. Stage carriage is defined under section 2(37) as under:- "(37) 'Stage carriage' means a Motor Vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey."
' Section 44 of the Ordinance mandates that transport vehicles are not to be used or driven without permit and under its sub-clause (1) as well as first provision, it is provided as under: "No owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of, and no driver of a transport vehicle shall drive or cause or permit to be driven, the vehicle in any public place, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit authorise the use or driving of the vehicle in such place granted or countersigned by a Regional or Provincial Transport Authority: ' Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage."
' The conditions referred in this subsection are further elaborated under subsection (2) of section 50 of the Ordinance, whereby a Regional Transport Authority may attach to a stage carriage permit any prescribed condition or all of the conditions mentioned hereafter. The permit to ply a stage carriage is issued in Form P.St.S. Mentioned under rule 65(ii) of the Rules. One of the conditions for grant of route permit as contained in clause 26 of the pro forma of permit, produced by the learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh, is that partition between ladies and gents compartments should be closed permanently. To strengthen this further it will be appropriate to refer to rule 73(3) of the Rules, where under it is mentioned that when in any stage carriage some seats have been reserved for ladies, the space in the region of such seat shall be reserved for lady standing passengers and no male passenger shall stand in that portion. Section 62(i) of the Ordinance authorises the Transport Authority which granted the permit to cancel the same or suspend it on the breach of any of the conditions prescribed in the permit. On the analysis of the above provisions of law, it is well .Within the domain of respondent No,3 to cancel/suspend the petitioners certificates of fitness as they have violated the conditions mentioned in para. 26 of the permits by not installing/fixing the partition/barrier in-between the male and female seats.
8. Another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight is that it is usually observed that the ladies while travelling in the Mini-buses and Coaches are being harassed and the male passengers usually stand along with them which according to our culture and society is not only uncivilised but unlslamic. These must have been the main reasons which compelled the learned Ombudsman to make such order and directed the Authorities to get barriers fixed in the Minibuses and Coaches. According to the respondents more than 60% buses have erected partitions in- between the ladies and gents compartments.As such there seems to be no reason for the petitioners not to instal such partitions. It may be added that on a perusal of the permits it has been found that the same are not in the names of the petitioners but are in the names of Wahid- ur-Rahman, Fida Younus, Khan Wali, Mir Zaman, Abdul Hamid, Mir Ali Khan, Syed Muhammad Tahir, Abdul Rahim Khan and Syed Ahmed Shah.
9. In view of the above position, the petitioners do not seem to be the aggrieved persons. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners merits no consideration mainly for the reasons that rule 182 of the Rules referred by him relates to the sitting of passengers alone in the public service vehicles. His next contention that the action of refusal to renew certificates have been taken under Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Rules framed thereunder which are no longer an existing law, has no force because the action has been taken under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Talagang Bus Service Ltd. v.
Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi 1969 SCM R 137 had granted leave to appeal and discussed the question whether Rules made under any provisions of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, continue in force. The third ground that respondent No,3 while cancelling the certificates of fitness failed to record the reasons in writing has no basis, as the Authority had clearly made known to the petitioners about the orders of Ombudsman and had also held several meetings with them wherein they had admitted to instal such partition. Irrespective of the above an alternate remedy by way of appeal being available to the petitioners under the Ordinance has not been availed.
10. For the foregoing reasons, we have been of the considered view that the petitioners failed to make out a case to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition failed and was dismissed accordingly.
' Above are the detailed reasons for the short order announced in Court on 29-10-1997. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.