Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: CHAND BADHSAH AND 23 OTHERS VS Respondent: PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Ajmal Mian, Ghulam Muhammad Kourejo Title: CHAND BADHSAH AND 23 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS Case No.: Constitutional Petition No, D-415 of 1980 Date of Judgment:1981-09-09 Reported As: 1983 CLC 2732 Result: Petition accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' AJMAL MIAN, J.- This petition has been filed by 24 petitioners who were holding route permits in respect of the routes mentioned in Annexure `A' to the petition for the various periods mentioned therein. It seems that in January, 1979 rule 57-A was added empowering the Provincial Transport Authority to classify routes into A, B and C categories for Stage Carriage Permits on the basis of density of load and condition of routes. It further seems that while the petitioners' old route permits prior to the incorporation of the above rule 57-A were operative the respondents purported to modify the routes. In consequence thereof, some of the petitioners filed Petitions Nos. D-1044, 1045, 1177, 1178, 1i99 and 1343 of 1979, challenging the notification issued in pursuance of above rule 57-A. The above petitions were disposed of by a judgment dated 17th October, 1979 on the basis of the following statement made by the learned Additional Advocate-General. (1) That the permits, which have already been issued to the petitioners will not be affected, and are not going to be cancelled till the period of their validity; (2) That upto the last date of the validity of the permits, the routes of the buses will not be subjected to any change. 2. It is the case of the petitioners in the present petition that upon the expiry of the periods of the routes permits, the petitioners applied for the renewal of the same under section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1969, but the respondents refused to renew the same. It has been urged by Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, the learned Additional Advocate-General, that no application for renewal was submitted by the petitioners and that the petitioners bad obtained new route permits voluntarily and therefore, they have no cause of action.
---
## Page 2
4. The petitioners have filed an affidavit in support of their averment that the applications for renewal of the route permits were filed, whereas the respondent has filed a counter-affidavit averring therein that no renewal applications are available on the record. It may also be pertinent to observe that the petitioners have alleged in their affidavit that they had obtained fresh permits under coercion and duress. Be that as it may, by consent this petition is disposed of in the following terms :- "If the petitioners' applications for renewal in respect of their old route permits can be traced out in the respondent's office, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law but in case no such applications are traceable the respondents will not be required to decide any renewal application." ' There will be no order as to costs.