Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 107 and 108‑D of 1968, decided oil 22nd August 1958.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Cast Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 25th June 1.968, in Petitions Nos. 285 and No. 292 of 1966, respectively).

Route‑permit‑Regional Transport Authority, in interest of public, passing , during currency of route-permits omnibus order forbidding plying of buses and trucks manufactured prior to 1950 Regional Transport Authority, held should act strictly in accordance with law prescribed by Act and Rules---Nevertheless order not interfered with since subsequent amendment in Act enabled R. T. A. to impose such condition and in view of the fact that Authority had done what was eminently desirable lit interest of public safety Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S.48 (a).

Kamal Hossain, Advocate Supreme Court (H. R. Sharif, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. M. Huq, Attorney for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 22nd August 1968.

‑The petitioners in these two cases, along with several others, sought by a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution, to challenge two resolutions of the Regional Transport Authority, Chittagong whereby in the interest of the public, the Authority had decided not to allow the plying of buses and trucks which were manufactured prior to 1950. These resolutions were passed on the 25th June 1966 and notices were given to all owners of such buses and trucks to replace them within one year but this time was extended by a further period of six months subsequently.

The petitioners along with other owners of such trucks and buses challenged the validity of the conditions sought to be attached by the Authority during the currency of the route permits already granted to them but their petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Only the two petitioners have come up for special leave.

It is contended with some force, on their behalf, that the Motor , Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder do not contemplate the imposition of such conditions during the currency of a permit by an omnibus order. Each case of an applicant for a permit has to be considered individually on its own merits. Besides the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder had armed the authorities with considerable powers of inspection of vehicles and cancellation of route‑permits if the vehicles are found to be unfit for use. The Authority concerned could not, therefore, by‑pass these provisions by arbitrarily declaring that vehicles of a certain vintage should be taken off the roads.

The High Court has held that since clause (a) of section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act permits the Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriages generally or to stage carriages of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted, the language was wide enough to include the model and/or the year of manufacture. In the view of the High Court conditions also could, under section 56(d) of the said Act, be attached during the currency of the permit after giving notice of not less than one month.

Learned counsel, however, points out that the Act was subsequently amended on the 30th January 1967, to enable the authorities to impose condiations during the currency of a permit. If this power was already there, such amendment would not have been necessary.

The High Court, it is further complained, has not considered the other argument, namely, as to whether such an omnibus order could be made by the Regional Transport Authority.

It is true that the amendment has not been given retrospec tive effect but since it ii possible now for the Regional Transport Authority to impose a condition during the currency of a permit, we do not think that we should, merely on technical grounds, interfere at this stage, particularly, since it is manifest that the Authority has done what was eminently desirable, namely, weeding out vehicles which had become dangerous for public use, even though the procedure adopted by it may not have been strictly correct.

The same result, it is conceded, could have and can still be achieved by following a somewhat different procedure con templated by the Act. We are also satisfied that no serious hardship has been caused, for, the petitioners were given ample time to make the replacements. Both these petitions are accordingly dismissed but this should not b.‑ treated as a precedent. It is incumbent on the Authorities to act strictly in accordance with law as prescribed in the Act and Rules.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.