ISLAMABAD, Oct 21: A Supreme Court bench on Thursday referred identical petitions to the Chief Justice of Pakistan with a request to form a larger bench to hear cases assailing ordinance relating to the franchise transport system in Punjab for being violative of the Constitution.

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

Abdullah Khan Dogar advocate representing the petitioners from Lahore stated that the grant of franchize to a private company, the Premier Transport, was against the fundamental right of freedom of trade as guaranteed under the Constitution.

Zafar Iqbal, one of the petitioners had pleaded that section 69-A of the ordinance under which different routes in Rawalpindi was franchized in favour of a local transporter, Varan, was violative of Articles 8 [laws in 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].

Section 69-A of the ordinance also frustrate the concept of free competition and encourage an environment of monopoly in favour of the particular operator, he stated.

Even the franchizing process was not transparent as it was done without any prior public notice and therefore it should be quashed as it confers arbitrary powers.

If only the local transporter is granted the rights to operate, then other route permit holders will be deprived of their lawful right to do business - a situation which will eventually lead to a law and order situation, the petitioner contended.

He pleaded that the local transporter was not a federal or a provincial government or a corporation controlled by any government authority therefore has no right to enjoy monopoly that mitigates against Article 18 of the Constitution.

Moreover the concept of the franchize was alien to the Constitution and could not be implemented in the circumstances where five or six families were dependent on one wagon.