| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 689 2005 SLD 689 = 2005 PLD 193 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 224 to 227 of 2003 and ConstitutionalPetition No.18 of 2004 and A.W C.M.As. Nos. 1383, 2376 and2604 of 2004, decision dated: 7-12-2004.
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, RANA BHAGWANDAS, SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, HAMID ALI MIRZA, SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ
Civil Appeals Nos. 224 to 227 of 2003 and ConstitutionalPetition No.18 of 2004 and A.W C.M.As. Nos. 1383, 2376 and2604 of 2004, decision dated: 7-12-2004.
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, RANA BHAGWANDAS, SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, HAMID ALI MIRZA, SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ
ARSHAD MEHMOOD and othersvsGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Transport Civil Secretariat, Lahore and othersARSHAD MEHMOOD and othersvsGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Transport Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others
Law: Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965
Section: 69-A
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 18, 3 & 185(3)
(a) Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)-------S. 69-A [as inserted by Punjab Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Ordinance (XLVI of 1999)]---Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970), Preamble--�Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 18, 3 & 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine the questions viz. whether insertion of S.69-A, in the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 by Punjab Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999 was in public interest and was not violative of the Constitutional guarantee of right of trade and business under Art. 18 of the Constitution and was in consonance with the provisions of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970; whether addition of S.69-A in the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 would not amount to protect and promote the vested interest of a specific class by depriving large number of people associated with the transport business of their legitimate right of earning and they had not been denied the equal and fair opportunity of right of business as provided under the Constitution; that the exclusion of wagons and mini bus owners from transport business under franchise routes scheme was not a departure from the policy of constitution of free competition and would not amount to take away the right of people from using the vehicles of their own choice as' means of transport and compel them to travel through the franchise transport; that imposing of unreasonable restriction on the free trade and business was not a social and economic exploitation as provided in Art.3 of the Constitution and that the provision of S.69-A of the Ordinance for exclusion of wagons and mini buses as stage carriages from the franchised routes in the private sector was not a discriminatory law and the distinction created was based on reasonable classification.(b) Interpretation of Constitution-------Principles---Constitution is a living document which portrays the aspiration and genius of the people and aims at creating progress, peace, welfare, amity among the citizens and the nations abroad; it is the basic…