Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 24 of 1954‑55, decided on 3rd March, 1955, District R. T. A. Lahore R. O. A. M.

S. 57 (3)‑Thirty days' notice necessary‑Section not over-ridding Rule 4.6 (2), Motor Vehicles Rules‑Case fully argued on merits before R. T. A. Not remanded for defect in notice‑Proceedings of semi- judicial character‑Principle of S. 99 C. P. C. should apply.

Wherever rules framed under an Act are not in con formity with the Act they do not have the force of law. It is imperative to give notice of thirty days and provisions of rule 4.6 (2) do not override section 57 (3).

Where, however, a case had been fully argued before the R. T. A. the mere fact that notice under section 57 (3) was of less than 30 days was not enough for‑ remanding case for re consideration.

Proceedings being of a semi‑judicial character, principle of section 99 C. P. C. in the matter of remand‑ will apply.

Khwaja Abdur Rahim and Khan Abdul Qayum Khan, for Appellant (Appeal Nos. 24 and 25).

Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, for Jullundur Co‑operative Transport Company Ltd. and Mahmud Ali Qasuri, for the Evergreen Transport Company, for Respondent (Appeal Nos. 24 and 25).

Fayaz Hassan Shah, for the Punjab Road Transport Board.

.‑This order will dispose of the three connected appeals Nos. 24, 25 and 41 of 1954‑1955.

The R. T. A. Lahore in their meeting held on 19th March, 1955 considered applications made by the Jullundur Transport Company and the Evergreen Transport Company, which is a new concern, for issue of stage carriage permits for Lyallpur‑Jhang route. Objections were taken on behalf of the Lyallpur‑Jhang Transport Company who are already operating on this route both on technical grounds and also on merits. It was urged that in the notices which were required to be issued under section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act it was incumbent on the R. T. A. to specify the date and place for considering the applications, but this provision of law was not complied with in respect of the application made by the Jullundur Co‑operative Transport Company. As regards the second application i.e., of the Evergreen Transport Company, in addition to this omission the matter was taken up for consideration before the expiry of thirty days as was further required by this section. The R. T. A. overruled these objections and proceeded to consider the applications which were dealt with on merits. They concluded that there was sufficient traffic to justify the issue of five permits each to the two Transport Companies. The objectors i. e., the Lyallpur‑Jhang Transport Company have now come up in appeal.

The arguments which have been advanced today are a repetition of those which were taken up before the R. T. A. The order of the R. T. A. makes a reference to rule 4'6 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules framed under the Act, which lays down that a period of fifteen days would be sufficient publication under section 57 (3) of the Act. It needs no arguments to say wherever the rules framed under an Act are not in conformity with the Act they do not have the force of law. It would, thus be imperative to give a notice of thirty days and provisions of rule 4'6 (2) do not override section 57 (3). It has however, been urged that even if there has been a disregard of the statutory provisions there has been no miscarriage of justice as the appellants argued their case at" considerable length before the R. T. A. and they have not advanced any new arguments or produced any fresh evidence which would justify a reconsideration of the case on merits by the R. T. A. In this connection I have been referred to section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code which runs as follows :‑

"No decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded in appeal on account of any mis-joinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court."

These proceedings are semi‑judicial in character and in the absence of any provisions in the Act itself, it would be salutary to have recourse to the general civil law of the country and follow it as far as possible. In the present case there has been no miscarriage of justice as the appellants did get a full opportunity to argue their case before the R. T. A., they have not adduced any fresh arguments or produced any new material which would justify remand of the case for re consideration. This argument therefore, fails.

On the merits it is contended that the issue of ten additional permits to these two transport companies, one of which is a new concern, is not warranted by the state of traffic on this route. This argument is, reinforced by Mr. Fayyaz Hasan Shah's statement to the effect that the Punjab Transport Board is deriving only one anna above what they consider an economic profit, which would justify running services by them on this route. I have no reasons to dis believe his figures. This fact would however, show that the amount of traffic is definitely more than what the existing service can cope with, a conclusion which is borne out by an application made previously on behalf of the appellant for ten additional permits. The Secretary R. T. A. has cate gorically asserted that there is so much demand that the R. T. A. Lahore are on the look out for some more transport companies for additional permits on this route. The general inference that gether would thus be that though an increase in transport facilities is necessary it is not proved that ten additional permits are in fact required in my opinion the increase in permit should be reduced to one half and keeping in view the antecedents of the two respondent concerns, I would distribute these five permits between them as fol lows :‑

Jullundur Co‑operative Transport Company which is a refugee concern and have a number of permits in Punjab on the very lucrative Amritsar‑Julllundur route . . . . . . three permits.

Evergreen Transport which is a new concern two permits. The appeal is accepted to the above extent. Stay orders already issued are vacated.

A. H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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