Govt told to ply vehicles on franchise routes: Changes in motor law ordered
By Our Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD, Dec 14: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Punjab government to consider operating its own vehicles on franchise routes awarded to private transport companies in the province.
A seven-member bench, in a detailed judgment on petitions against awarding of franchise routes in different cities, asked the government to run its own transport as contemplated under Article 18(c) (freedom of trade, business or profession), especially when the "franchise holders" obtained 70 per cent loans against an equity of 30 per cent to run their business.
The Punjab government was also directed to suitably amend the Motor Vehicle Ordinance 1965 in public interest by ensuring fair business opportunity to transporters. The amendment should also ensure provision of better travelling facilities to commuters in a dignified manner, the judgment said.
Authored by Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the 49-page judgment directed the provincial government to take constitutional or administrative steps in the public interest for solving transport problems in urban areas of the province.
Earlier, on October 29, a larger bench, comprising Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, Justice Hamid Ali Mirza, Justice Sardar Mohammad Raza Khan, Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, had declared Section 69-A of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance 1965 of the Punjab government as violative of the Constitution.
Through a short order, the court, however, allowed the transport operators to ply their vehicles on the franchise routes for four months. The detailed judgment said section 69-A of the ordinance had created a classification between franchise holders and appellant transporters.
Therefore, this section was violative of Articles 8 (laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void) and 25 (equality of citizens) of the Constitution.
It noted that the ordinance was not placed before the Punjab Assembly to make it an act as the provincial assembly was suspended after the October 12 military take over in 1999. Thus, in the absence of public opinion in promulgating section 69-A of the ordinance, it may not be difficult to infer that it was not promulgated in the public interest and welfare.
Had this law been discussed in the assembly through representatives of the public, it might have changed its complexion to bring it within the command of Article 18 of the Constitution, the judgement said.
The high court, while hearing the petition earlier, should have conducted an inquiry to ascertain whether addition of this section was for the public interest and welfare, it said.
Such an exercise should always be undertaken in the interest of justice, and the court can always direct the government to conduct an inquiry to decide the validity of the section.
While writing the judgment, Justice Chaudhry also observed that the Constitution was a living document that portrayed aspirations and genius of the people, and it aimed at citizens' welfare.
Therefore, while interpreting articles of the Constitution, particularly those relating to the fundamental rights of the citizens, approach of the courts should be dynamic, rather than static, pragmatic and not pedantic and elastic rather rigid.
