MENT MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the following direction contained in the impugned judgment dated 15.6.2000 of the Lahore High Court passed in W.P. No. 9287 of 2000:- "He is further directed not to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation, and decide the same on merits."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were plying buses from D-Class Bus Stand sanctioned in their favour at Service Road, Jhang by the Transport Authority .On 18.6.1992.
Subsequently, on 20.9.1999, they were sanctioned a Bus Stand at Ayyub Chowk, Bhakkar Road, Jhang City by the RTA, legality of which order was challenged by M/s. Haq Nawaz Travels through W.P. No. 18841 of 1999 before the Lahore High Court which was disposed of by the learned Judge in Chamber through order dated 17.2.2000 that the said petitioner should first avail the remedy of appeal provided under the law against the said order before the Higher Transport Authority. M/s. Haq Nawaz Travels tiled appeal before the Chairman, RTA and having realizing that the same was barred by time, they tiled another Writ Petition No. 6982/2000 before the High Court seeking clarification about concession in respect of limitation which was dismissed through judgment dated 27.4.2000 as a consequence of which the question of limitation was left open to he decided by the Appellate Authority.
3. The present respondent on 22.5.2000 also tiled W.P. No. 9287 of 2000 challenging the legality of the same order dated 20.9.1999 passed in favour of the petitioners of sanctioning of Bus Stand in their favour. This petition has also been dismissed on the same ground through the impugned judgment dated 15.6.2000 that the respondent should avail the remedy of appeal but a direction has been made as reproduced above that the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation but shall he decided on merits.
4. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against this direction and pray that no proceedings could he exempted from the applicability of law of limitation and the appeal of the respondent should have been allowed to he decided by the Appellate Authority including the question of limitation, for the opposite party in case of time-barred appeal, acquires a valuable right.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that under Article 199 of the Constitution, the High Court is empowered to direct a person performing functions in connection of Central or the Province to do what the law requires him to do or to refrain from doing which the law does not permit him to do. In this view of the matter, the direction to the Appellate Authority not to dismiss the appeal on the point of limitation is a direction against law. The exercise of power by such authority could not he taken away and the appeal of the respondent could not be exempted from the applicability of the law of limitation. The respondent should have been directed to approach the Appellate Authority and seek condonation of delay, if the same was permissible under the law and the Authority should have been allowed to decide the matter in its discretion or power. The argument has force. In the case of Haq Nawaz Travels (W.P. No. 18841 of 1999), the same learned Judge left the question of limitation open. Respondent's appeal could not he exempted from the applicability of the law/ of limitation and the matter should have been left at the end of the Appellate Authority in case any application for condonation of delay was made to decide the same on merits.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent when questioned as to how such a direction could be issued which is contrary to law has no answer. He submitted that he would apply to the Appellate Authority for condonation of delay. He may do so which application shall he decided in accordance with law.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the respondent did not claim sanction of any similar Bus Stand at the said road, therefore, it has no locus standi to tile appeal against the Adda/Bus Stand of the petitioners merely for the sake of objection. We are not required to dilate upon this aspect of the case or any point on merits. The petitioners are at liberty to defend themselves and raise all objections both legal and factual before the Appellate Authority to oppose the appeal which shall he decided by the said Authority.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal, the same is accepted and the direction as reproduced above contained in the impugned judgment dated 15.6.2000 of the High Court are hereby set aside with the observation that the question of limitation is left open which shall be decided in accordance with law as observed above.