KARACHI, Feb 28: While dismissing a civil review petition of the Malir Cantonment Board, the Supreme Court has held that the petitioners under no provision of law are authorized to assume the duties of the provincial transport authority.

The petitioners had sought review of this court's judgment of May 14, 2003, delivered in civil petition (No.607-K of 2002) whereby the leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar held that all the contentions raised in the review petition were considered and repelled in May 14th judgement of the Supreme Court.

It was held in the earlier judgement of the apex court, mentioned above, that the respondent (Syed Tanveer Ali) had never challenged the authority of the petitioners (Malir Cantonment Board) for taking necessary measures for safety purposes.

However, the apex court noted that on the one hand the cantonment board had taken the plea of security and on the other it had invited tenders for the same route on which vehicles of the respondent were plying.

The order stated that the petitioners under no provision of law were authorized to assume the duties of the provincial transport authority, which is the competent authority relating to transport affairs. The route permit of Tanveer Ali was validly issued and the petitioners had no authority to stop his vehicles, the apex court held.

Secretary Regional Transport Authority had renewed/issued fresh permit in favour of Syed Tanveer Ali on Jan 7, 2003 that was valid up to Oct 2, 2005. According to the route permit, the respondent can ply vehicles from Asif Market (Malir Cantt) to Askari Apartments (Karachi Cantt) via Combined Military Hospital, Malir Cantt Bazar, Military Check Post No 2, Jinnah Avenue, Malir Halt, Sharae Faisal, Nursery, Gora Qabristan, Hotel Regent Plaza (Ex-Taj Mahal Hotel) and Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre.

The court had held that a cantonment area was included within the territorial limits of the province in which it was situated. No material had been brought to substantiate the plea that the petitioners were legally competent to undo the act of the Provincial Transport Authority. No interference was warranted.

It may be pointed out that in 2002 the Sindh High Court, while giving its ruling in the matter, had held that as long as a transporter possessed a valid route permit granted by the provincial transport authority, the Malir Cantonment Board could not ask him (transporter) to obtain a separate licence for allowing entry of his vehicles into the cantonment area.

The SHC's order pertained to a petition filed by Syed Tanveer Ali, who was operating Askari Coach service from Malir Cantt to Karachi Cantt Railway Station under the route permit issued by the provincial transport authority.

By a letter dated August 21, 1997, issued by the Station Headquarters, Malir Cantt, Tanveer Ali was given a permit to run the service from Malir Cantt upon certain conditions, including payment of permit fee. This permit was, however, cancelled by a subsequent letter dated March 12, 1998. On Dec 21, 1997, through a public notice appearing in the press the Executive Officer of Malir Cantt Board had invited applications from interested transporters possessing valid route permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority to apply for plying buses and coaches on the designated route upon security deposit.

Syed Tanvir Ali had protested against inviting such bids. But, the Station Headquarters informed him that it had been decided to award the contract for operating vehicles on the prescribed route through competitive bids and the offer submitted by Al-Noor Coach Service, being the lowest was approved by the Garrison Commander. Therefore, the permission granted to him (Tanveer Ali) was withdrawn.

Challenging the action of the Malir Cantt Board, Tanveer Ali contended that once he had been granted a route permit to ply coaches by the competent authority, the board had no jurisdiction to impose further conditions and restrain entry of such vehicles into the cantonment area.

Counsel for the Malir Cantt Board had pleaded before the SHC that Section 282 (4) of the Cantonment Act enabled the cantonment board to make by-laws in respect of several matters, including regulations or prohibition of any discrepancies of traffic in the streets. The court had held that the board might have discretion not to perform a particular function, but for restricting the movement of persons or vehicles was altogether different and must be clearly spelt out in the statute.