1. ' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that petitioner No,1 is a registered union of commercial vehicles whereas respondent No,2 is the owner of commercial vehicle service.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner highlighted the previous history/factual background qua the controversy arising in this writ petition and stated that in 1988 certain amendments were made in Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 empowering the Regional Transport Authority to authorise any licensed automobile workshop to perform the functions of Motor Vehicle Examiner. Before aforesaid amendments the powers to issue fitness certificate for a vehicle were with the Government official such as Motor Vehicle Examiner. The respondents made amendments in section 35 and Rule 35, Rule 35(9), Rule 35(a), Rule 35(b), Rule 35(c) and amended the aforesaid provisions of law vide Notification dated 7-8-1993 and the powers of Regional Transport Authority to authorise any licensed automobile workshop to perform the functions of Motor Vehicle Examiner were withdrawn Kohistan Bus Service Autoworkshop and other private workshops tiled various writ petitions including Writ Petition No,13831 of 1993 challenging the vires of the aforesaid amendments made through Notification, dated 7-8-1993. All the writ petitions including Writ Petition No,13831 of 1993 were dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 2-5-1995. In 1999 the private automobile workshop owners approached the respondents for revival of the old system which was before the amendment, dated 7-8-1993. The summary was submitted before the Governor Punjab by the Secretary Transport but the competent authority did not approve the summary of the Secretary Transport. The Secretary Transport on 6-12-2000 submitted a summary to the Governor of Punjab under the heading "Outsourcing of motor "vehicles examination". Para. 3(a) of the said summary is reproduced hereunder :-- ' The Motor Vehicle Examination may not be outsourced to Private Automobile Workshops/University of Engineering and Technology.
2. ' Subsequently on 22-12-2001 in the meeting on traffic management presided over by the Governor following decision was made on the subject:--- "The Governor Punjab was pleased to direct that Motor Vehicle Examiners to coordinate/assist the proposed automobile workshops for examining the vehicles before issuance of fitness certificates."
3. ' Pursuant to above decision the amendments in Rule 35 were proposed in such a fashion so as to bring the Motor Vehicles Rules in a position as these were before the amendment made on 7-8- 1993. The proposed amendment was prepared by the Government of Punjab Transport Department vide Notification, dated 17-4-2002. The petitioners being aggrieved by the proposed amendment filed this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No,2 has no authority whatsoever under the law to prepare aforesaid draft amendment in violation of parameters prescribed by the Governor of Punjab. He further submits that proposed amendment is not in the public interest which will cause difficulties to the poor people and also cause huge public loss due to which the competent authority was constrained to amend the rules vide Notification, dated 7-8-1993. He further urges that the proposed amendments suffer from, jurisdictional defect on account of the fact that all executive authorities can act on the basis of some legal authority. In the present case the legal authority is decision of the Governor, dated 22-12-2001 and since respondent No,2 has exceeded has authority by deviating and disgressing from the decision of the Governor the proposed amendment needs to be suitably reviewed and rectified. He further urges that petitioners who are tax-payees are aggrieved of the fact that in the proposed amendments they shall be liable to pay double fee for the same service one to the Motor Vehicle Examiners and the other to the licensed automobile workshops. Therefore Proposed amendment amounts to double fee for the same services. Therefore, the same is -un-Constitutional. He further urges that workshops in the private sector are substandard and not creditworthy.
4. Learned Advocate-General Punjab submits as under:---
(i) The petitioners have no locus standi to file this writ petition.
(ii) This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition with regard to policies issued by the competent authority.
(iii) The petitioners challenged inter-department's correspondence through this writ petition.
4. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
(iv) No final notification has been issued by the competent authority. Only proposed notification with regard to amendments is issued and inviting objections from the aggrieved persons.
5. Therefore, writ petition at this stage is not maintainable.
(v) The petitioners have alternative remedy to file objections before the competent authority.
(vi) The petitioners have already filed objections before the respondents. Therefore writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of estoppel and waiver. A copy of the objections has been handed over to the petitioner's learned counsel by the learned Advocate-General.
(vii) Similar Writ Petition No,13831 of 1993 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment, dated 2-5- 1995.
(viii) The petitioners filed application in Writ Petition No, 13831 of 1993 for impleadment as respondents which was dismissed by this Court.
(ix) The petitioners are not aggrieved persons and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention he relied upon Zaibtun Textile Mills v. Central Board of Revenue PLD 1983 SC 358.
6. He also relied upon the subsequent minutes of meeting of the Committee held on 1-5-2002 under the chairmanship of the Governor.
7. ' Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that copy of the objections allegedly filed by the petitioner before respondent No,2 handed over by the Advocate-General, Punjab to him are not objections filed by the petitioners before respondent No,2. In fact petitioners filed appeal before Governor pointing out the irregularities while framing proposed amendment which is still pending adjudication.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of law in question existing previous and proposed amendment and relevant portion of the summary of the Governor to resolve the controversy between the parties. Rule 35 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 related to the issue and renewal of certificate of fitness in respect of a vehicle and as stated above for the first time in 1988 a proviso was added to the aforementioned Rule which is reproduced hereunder:-- "Provided that the Regional Transport Authority may authorize any licensed. Automobile Workshop to perform the functions of a Motor Vehicle Examiner."
8. ' In view of the above proviso respondents issued licenses to issue certificate of fitness for a particular vehicle to Kohistan Bus Service Automobile Workshop etc. In the year 1989. It is pertinent to mention here that proviso was also added to sub-rule (9) of Rule 35 which, is to the following effect: "Provided that the fee for the grant of renewal of a certificate of fitness payable to a licensed Automobile Workshop shall be rupees ten."
9. ' In addition to rule 35-A which prescribes procedure as to the issuance of a licnece/renewal thereof, there is rule 35-B relating to suspension or cancellation of a licence while Rule 35-C confers power on an appellate authority for entertaining appeals if a person is aggrieved under Rule 35(B) as to the suspension or cancellation of his licence. The aforesaid Rules were amended by the competent authority vide Notification, dated 7-8-1993. The same are reproduced hereunder:--- "In exercise of the powers conferred to him under section 43 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 (XIX of 1965) the Governor of the Punjab, after previous publication, is pleased to direct that in the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, in their application to the Province of the Punjab, the following further amendments shall be made, namely:--- AMENDMENTS ' In the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969---
(i) in rule 34, in sub-rule (1) the words and expressions.
10. ' Signature of authorized person___________ ' Seal of the Licensed Automobile Workshop__________ ' Licence No,___________ ' Place of issue __________ shall be omitted;
(ii) in rule 35---
(a) in sub-rule (1) and in sub-rule (9), the provisos shall be omitted;
(b) in sub-rule (2) the words "form C.F.R.A. Respectively" shall be omitted; and
(c) the words "or a Licenced Automobile Workshop" wherever occurring shall be omitted; and
(iii) rules 35-A, 35-B and 35-C shall be omitted."
11. ' Kohistan Bus Service Automobile Workshop and others being aggrieved filed various writ petitions including Writ Petition No,13831 of 1993 which were dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 2-5- 1995. The private automobile workshop owners approached the respondents for revival of old system which was before the amendment, dated 7-8-1993. The summary was submitted before the competent authority by the Secretary Transport but the competent authority did not approve the summary of the Secretary Transport. The summary was also submitted to the Governor of Punjab by the Secretary Transport on 6-12-2000 to the following effect as is evident from para.3 of the summary:- "The Motor Vehicle Examination may not be outsourced to Private Automobile Workshop/University of Engineering and Technology."
12. ' The Finance Secretary has made following remarks qua the aforesaid summary of the Secretary Transport under the direction of competent authority on 1-3-2001: "The proposal put forward by Transport Department vide subpara. (a) of para. 3 is linked with the generation of revenue. Finance Department supports it in principle. So far as the provision of Rs, 23.80 lac is concerned, it is suggested that as a test case, we may sanction Rs, 0.70 lac for the office of MVE at Lahore only for equipping their workshop with the latest machinery. With the usage of new techniques/machinery, there is a possibility that revenue receipts would show an upward trend and the quality of examination improves and this may, therefore, be put to a test."
13. ' The aforesaid summary was approved by the Governor with the following remarks on 22-3-2001:-- - "Governor has seen.
14. ' Transport is part of Works and Services Department in the proposed (new) district set up.
15. Therefore, outsourcing of MVE at this point may not be appropriate Governor also sanctions Rs,0.70 lac (Rupees Seventy thousand only) for the office of MVE at Lahore only for equipping workshop with the latest machinery (as suggested by FS). This should be a test case for Transport Department."
16. ' In the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Governor on 22-12-2001 decision was taken to the following effect:--- "The Governor Punjab was pleased to direct that Motor Vehicle Examiners to coordinate/assist the proposed automobile workshops for examining the vehicles before issuance of fitness certificates."
17. ' The proposed amendment was prepared and suggested following amendments in Rule 35:
(ii) in sub-rule (1) after clause (a), the following proviso shall be added: "Provided that the District Regional Transport Authority may authorise any licensed Automobile Workshop to perform the functions of a Motor Vehicle Examiner."
18. ' The petitioners submitted representation to the Governor on 22-4-2002. The meeting of the Committee was held under the Chairmanship of the Governor on 1-5-2002 and had decided the matter in the following terms:-- "Progress to be reviewed on operations to be started in Faisalabad (Manthar Metro Bus Service), Lahore (Premier Trading Service), Sialkot and more buses in Multan in 2002.
19. ' Outsourcing of Motor Vehicles Examination. Installation of Fare Meters.
20. ' Modernization of Cab System."
21. In case the aforesaid facts are put in a juxtaposition then it is crystal clear that no final order has been passed and approved by the Governor. It is settled principle of law that this Court prefers to exercise judicial restraint and does not favor interference with inter-departmental affairs. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by Amin Jan v. Director-General, T&T and others PLD 1985 Lahr.
81. However, in the interest of justice and fair play let a copy of the writ petition be sent to respondent No,2 who is directed to consider the same as objections filed by the petitioners before him in terms of the proposed Notification dated 17-4-2002. Respondent No,1 is also directed to place on record all the previous summaries before the Governor so that competent authority be in a position to have a complete picture before him at the time of passing the final order so that law should be framed in accordance with the provisions of West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 keeping in view the overall position with regard to merits and demerits of all laws qua the history of rules in the field. Office is directed to send copy of this judgment to respondents Nos.1 and 2 for necessary action and compliance.
22. ' With these observations this writ petition is disposed of.