Haji JUMMA and others vs ABDUR RASHEED and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of a bus route permit to the respondent, Abdur Rasheed. The petitioners, who already held route permits for the Quetta City-Cantonment route, alleged that the Transport Authority granted the respondent's permit without proper publication, publicity, or providing the petitioners an opportunity for a hearing. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the permit was issued through a drawing of lots, which they argued violated the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. They also challenged the High Court's interpretation of the terms 'stage carriage' and 'contract carriage'. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the points raised by the petitioners regarding the procedural fairness of the permit grant and the statutory interpretation of the relevant transport laws required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these legal questions in depth.
- Does the grant of a route permit by a Transport Authority without a hearing violate the principles of natural justice?
- Is the granting of a route permit by drawing lots a violation of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965?
- What is the correct legal interpretation of 'stage carriage' and 'contract carriage' under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965?
- Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965
ORDER
' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14- 4-1994 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta.
2. The petitioners are holding route permits for plying buses Quetta City-Cantonment. Respondent Abdur Rasheed was also granted route permit for the same route. It was contended by Mr.Tahir Muhammad Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Transport Authority without publication or publicity or giving hearing to the petitioners had granted route permit to respondent Abdur Rasheed. He challenged the same in appeal before the Chairman, Transport Authority, Quetta, which was rejected. The petitioners challenged the orders of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority in Writ Petition before the High Court of Baluchistan. Vide judgment dated 14-4-1994 the writ petition was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Quetta, had not given opportunity of hearing while granting route permit to respondent Abdur Rasheed. He further contended that route permit was granted to Abdur Rasheed by drawing lots in violation of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. It was further contended that the learned Judges of the High Court had not properly interpreted the word "stage carriage and contract carriage". The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted.