ISLAMABAD, Oct 26: The Supreme Court was told here on Tuesday that the exclusion of wagons and mini-buses from the transport business under franchise route scheme was a departure from the policy of free competition , amounting to depriving the people of their right to chose.

Senior advocate Akram Sheikh, on behalf of petitioner Arshad Mahmood, presented arguments before a seven-member bench, hearing identical petitions against the franchised transport policy of the Punjab government. He contended that imposing unreasonable restriction on the free trade and business meant social and economic exploitation.

The 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 Mohammad Khokhar and Justice Tassadduq Hussain Jillani, however, adjourned the hearing till Wednesday.

Different petitioners from Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad and Rawalpindi have challenged the December 12, 2002 decision of the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed petitions against the franchise transport system. The petitioners included Mohammad Arshad, Mohammad Yunus, Mukhtar Ahmed and Zafar Iqbal.

The petitions were referred to the chief justice of Pakistan, who formed a larger bench to hear cases challenging the ordinance relating to the Franchise Transport System in Punjab for allegedly being violative of the Constitution.

During the hearing, the bench expressed the opinion that the matter should be decide while considering the existing road capacity and availability of resources.

High fares of the franchised transport system compared to those of wagons and mini-buses were also discussed during the hearing. A representative of the Punjab government informed the bench that the implementation of official fares list for different routes was being monitored.

Abdullah Khan Dogar advocate, representing the petitioners from Lahore, said the franchised system had divided the society into privileged and under-privileged classes, which was against the fundamental right to freedom of trade guaranteed under the Constitution.

The petitioners had pleaded that section 69-A of the ordinance, under which different routes in Rawalpindi were franchised in favour of a local transporter, was violative of Articles 8 (laws consistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void), 18 (freedom of trade, business or profession), 25 (equality of citizens) and 143 (inconsistency between federal and provincial laws).