Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 48 of 1953‑54, decided on 9th March 1955, District R. T. A., Lahore.

Ss. 47 and 57‑Transport Authorities when considering transport cases may hear party who has neither objected in writing under S. 57 nor is an appli cant.

Section 47 of the Act should be considered independently of the provisions of section 57. It is open not only to the appellate authority but also to the R. T. A. to keep in view the additional provisions which section 47 lays down when considering transport cases. The provisions of section 57 are obligatory in the sense that transport authorities must take the provisions of this section into considerations. It is open to them to consider other factors when arriving at their decisions, such as are provided for in section 47.

An order permitting a party who had neither objected in writing under section 57 nor was an applicant to appear as respondent in an appeal was held to be correct.

Mahmud Ali Kasuri, for appellant.

Kh. Abdur Rahim, for Respondent (Pakistan Transport Co. Ltd.)

‑The appellant company applied for permission to ply between Darya Khan and Jhang via Dulla Wala‑Saraj Krishna but the R. T. A. in their meeting held on 27th February, 1st and 5th March, 1954, rejected their application on the ground that a case was not made out. The present appeal has been preferred against their order and the main contention that has been put forward is that the appellants were trying to open a route which was not already being covered and it was therefore in the interest of the public and for their convenience a major consideration in the issue of permits that the request made should have been granted.

A preliminary objection was taken to the order passed by my learned predecessor permitting the Pakistan Transport Company Ltd. who already ply between Darya Khan and Jhang by a shorter and partly different route to be impleaded as a party. It was contended that only such persons as raise objections in writing before the R. T. A. under section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act or are themselves applicants can be heard in appeal. This argument is based on section 57 which is interpreted to debar R. T. A. from considering any objectors 'who have not put their objections in writing. In case the R. T. A. are held to be precluded from considering objections which do not conform to the provisions of section 57, it is argued that the appellate authority too would be similarly debarred. This question has already been considered at length in Ramayya v. The State of Madras (A I R 1952 Mad: 300) in which it was held that section 47 of the Act should be considered independently of the‑provisions of section 57. It is thus open not only to the appellate authority but also to the R. T. A. to keep in view the additional provisions which section 47 lays down when considering transport cases. The provisions of section 57 were interpreted to be obligatory in the sense that transport authorities must take the provisions of this section into consideration. It would thus be open to them to consider other factors when arriving at their decisions, such as are provided for in section 47. The order passed by my learned predecessor was, therefore, quite correct Coming to the merits of the case, there could hardly be any divergence of views. The respondents i.e., the Pakistan Transport Company Ltd. are providing a speedy and effective means of transport between Jhang and Darya Khan. The diversion of a part of this route via Dulleala is also covered by existing transport services. There is thus prima facie hardly any need for additional transport unless the number of passengers travelling along this route has increased. The R. T. A, are clear that the present transport services are sufficient to meet the requirements of existing passengers. I have, therefore, no ground to interfere in the order which has already been passed and reject this appeal.

A. H. Appeal rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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