DIR FLYING COACH COMPANY Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DIR'701
ORDER
The petitioners, Malik Muhammad Zeb etc. were running a Flying Coach Stand at Timargara as well as Dir Secretary; Regional Transport Authority, Malakand Division on 28‑6‑1994 issued a licence to Abdul Latif etc. to open another stand of the Flying Coaches at Timargara in the main Chowk. This has aggrieved Malik Muhammad Zeb etc. of Dir Flying Coach Service who brought a suit in which the temporary injunction was refused to them by both the Courts below and hence this revision.
It is alleged that the issuance of licence to the respondents was violative of Rule 263 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance but a perusal el" said rule would indicate that no order permitting a place to be used as a Stand would be made unless certain conditions given in the rule are fulfilled but this norm can be deviated from provided the Regional Transport. Authority gives special permission. Here the Stand is permitted by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Prima facie the order suffers from no illegality.
Moreover, the petitioners/plaintiffs' have claimed that the introduction of the second Adda has brought them financial loss or is likely to bring such loss. Obviously their daily traffic and the revenue concerning such traffic can easily be calculated and so is the expected loss which can be conveniently measured in terms of money and hence no stay order can be granted when such loss can be measured and consequently claimed in case the plaintiffs succeed.
4. There is not the least of idea of the loss being irreparable. When the impugned act brings about some monetary loss to a party merely because that parties' monopoly is broken and new business concerns, provided not violative of any law, have resulted in the healthy competition favourable to the public at large, it does not in any sense of the term amount either to substantial or to irreparable loss within the meanings of well‑known three ingredients, rather restrictions, imposed by the Courts themselves on their power‑ to issue a temporary injunction. Hence I hold that the loss is not irreparable.
5. There is not an iota of such inconvenience, except some financial loss, to the petitioners. Rather there might be some convenience to the public at large on the other hand. The element of inconvenience is also missing and hence the petitioners are not entitled to a temporary injunction.
6. In case the plaintiffs ultimately succeed, they can claim the loss from the Government or any other quarter. Both the Courts below have rightly come to a concurrent conclusion. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
AA./1687/Pesh Revision dismissed.