Summary: Background:This case pertains to appeals (Civil Petitions Nos. 492 to 495 of 2009) against a decision by the Lahore High Court, which had ruled on internal appeals (I.C.As. Nos. 154 to 157 of 2008). The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed these petitions regarding the procedural aspects of judgment delivery and the administrative instructions by the Inspector-General of Police without Provincial Government approval, under the Police Act of 1861.----Issues:Whether the delay in announcing the High Court's judgment violated legal precedents or resulted in prejudice to the petitioners.The validity of police administrative instructions issued without Provincial Government approval, as required by the Police Act of 1861.The implications of such administrative practices on the principles of law and due process.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Lahore High Court, finding no prejudice caused by the delay in judgment announcement. The Court held that while administrative instructions by the Inspector-General of Police are common, they must be approved by the Provincial Government to be legally binding. Consequently, instructions not approved are invalid and cannot override statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that every case must be decided based on its unique facts and circumstances, rejecting the petitioners' claims due to lack of legal support for the administrative instructions they relied upon.-----Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Bakhsh's case (1989 SCMR 1473)Juma Khan's case (PLD 2002 SC 823)Samiul Haq's case (2001 SCMR 1053)Ali Khan Subanpoto's case (1997 SCMR 1590)Raja Hamayun Sarfraz Khan's case (2007 SCMR 307)Syed Iftikharud-Din Haider Gardezi's case (1996 SCMR 669 at 673)Muhammad Ovais's case (2007 SCMR 1587)Qayyum Nawaz Khan's case (1999 SCMR 1594)Siddiq Akbar's case (1998 SCMR 2013)Anwar Ahmed Lari's case (1990 SCMR 1013)Chairman, Regional Transport Authority's case (PLD 1991 SC 14)Messrs Airport Support Services' case (1998 SCMR 2268)Jalaluddin's case (PLD 1992 SC 207)Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao's case (PLD 1997 Pesh. 93)Sharaf Faridi and 3 others v. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1989 Kar. 404)Fauji Foundation and another v. Shamimur Rehman (PLD 1983 SC 457)

Summary: (a) Transport law—Bus stands—Approval, cancellation, and appellate review —AJ&K Motor Vehicles Rules, 1973, rr. 230, 231 & 241; General Clauses Act, s. 24-A; AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, Art. 44 (writs), Fundamental Rights (Right 8: trade/business; Right 19: fair trial)—Petitioners, a registered transport company (Sangu Travels Pvt. Ltd.), obtained approval/“Form Stand D” dated 03-10-2024 for a D-Class bus stand at Kail, District Neelum, after spot inspections and NOCs from DC and SP Neelum—Appellate Transport Authority (Senior Member Board of Revenue) set aside the approval via order dated 11-03-2025—Held, approval had been granted upon fulfillment of statutory prerequisites under r. 230(2) (guidance of District Magistrate & SP) and r. 231 (conditions for stands); appellate order lacked cogent reasons and violated s. 24-A GCA (duty to give reasons) and r. 241(2) (mandatory prior hearing before revocation)—Order set aside; original approval restored. (b) Administrative law—Natural justice and fair trial —Audi alteram partem; r. 241(2) AJ&K Motor Vehicles Rules—Revocation/cancellation of a stand license requires prior notice and an opportunity of hearing; failure vitiates the order—Appellate Authority’s cancellation devoid of due process and transparency, hence void. (c) Competition/market access—Monopoly vs. laissez-faire —Constitutional right to trade/business (FR No. 8)—State obligation to ensure level playing field and avoid monopolistic outcomes in the transport sector—Private rivals (transport union actors) lacked locus to attack a lawfully sanctioned private stand merely to preserve market dominance—Public interest and commuter welfare in hilly/remote areas (Neelum Valley) preferred over narrow trade protectionism. (d) Judicial review—Scope under Art. 44 —High Court’s writ jurisdiction extends to correcting administrative actions that are arbitrary, reason-less, ultra vires rules (rr. 230/231/241), or infringe fundamental rights—Where statutory protocols (DC/SP guidance, documented compliance, recorded reasons, hearing) are on record, appellate reversal “by telegraphic order” cannot stand. (e) Locus poenitentiae & reasonable expectation —Once a license/approval is granted upon full compliance, the beneficiary acquires a reasonable expectation of continuity unless statutory grounds for cancellation are established through due process; abrupt reversal offends these doctrines and fundamental rights (equality, lawful business). Result (WP No. 684/2025): Allowed—Impugned appellate order dated 11-03-2025 set aside; approval of D-Class Stand dated 03-10-2024 in favour of petitioners restored—No costs. Connected Petition (WP No. 778/2025): Partly dismissed—Prayer to restrain private respondents from running transport Athmuqam↔Kail refused (route/operations lie within Transport Authority’s regulatory domain); otherwise disposed of in line with restoration of petitioners’ stand approval. Key Statutory Provisions/Rules: AJ&K Motor Vehicles Rules, 1973: r. 230 (site considerations; DC/SP guidance), r. 231 (conditions for stands), r. 241(1)–(3) (cancellation; hearing; duration/renewal). General Clauses Act, s. 24-A (reasoned orders; fairness). AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974: Art. 44 (writs); Fundamental Rights (trade/business; fair trial). Notable Findings: Documentary record (DC Neelum’s recommendation; SP Neelum’s NOC; municipal confirmations; firm registration & BoD resolution) evidenced compliance with rr. 230/231. Appellate Authority’s order “lacked fairness and transparency,” did not engage with the statutory criteria, and ignored mandatory hearing requirements under r. 241(2). Court underscores public-interest benchmark in transport regulation for remote terrain; administrative justice cannot be subordinated to union pressure or market rivalry. Disposition: WP 684/2025 accepted; approval restored. WP 778/2025—injunctive relief against rivals refused; petition otherwise disposed accordingly.