Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 2 of 1955‑56, decided on 8th February 1956, District R. T. A., Multan.

S. 57 (5)‑Public hear ing by Authority‑Objectors failing to appear at meeting of R. T. A. due to misleading notice in newspaper‑Route permits granted at such meeting cancelled.

Provisions of section 57 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939) require consideration of applications and objections at a public hearing ".

Therefore route permits granted at a meeting of the R. T. A. regarding which misleading notices had appeared in newspapers and as a consequence of which objectors had not put up appearance at the meeting, were cancelled, and a duly publicized meeting of the R. T. A. ordered to be held.

Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.

Sh. Bashir Ahmad for Respondent.

This order will dispose of the two con nected transport appeals Nos. 2 and 16 of 1955‑56, the facts of which briefly are as follows :‑

The Ravi Transport Company, who are the respondents in the two appeals under consideration, bad applied for route permits to ply along the Okara Basirpur road. The case came up for consideration in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Multan on 23rd and 24th July, but as the statutory period of thirty days, required under section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, had not expired after publication of the application, it was adjourned for consideration in the next meeting. Subsequently in the issue of the " Driver " dated 30th September, 1955, a notice appeared that the next meeting will be held on 8th October. On 5th October another notice appeared in the same paper to the effect that no new applications for route permits will be considered in the meeting of the 8th October and interested parties, therefore, need not appear. Nevertheless on that day the Regional Transport Authority did consider several cases for route permits including the applications made by the Ravi Transport Company. i.e., the present respondents. The Authority decided to grant four permits to this Company and observed that Okara Basirpur was a new route ; also that the company deserved consideration because permits already granted to them to ply between Okara‑Lyallpur had been cancelled by the Punjab Government by the issue of a notification under section 43 (4) (a) of the Act. The two appellants Okara Bus Service, who already ply on this route and run about ten services a day and the Lower Bari Co‑operative Transport Society, who run services on a part of this route, have both appealed against this order.

It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the statutory provisions of section 57 (5) of the Act which require consideration of applications and objections " at a public hearing " have not been complied with, and the objectors had no opportunity of being heard in view of the wrong information given out by the Authority in the issue of the " Driver "dated 5th October, I have also been shown a notice dated 8th October issued by the Regional Transport Authority to the effect that this very matter of the Ravi Transport Company would be taken up for consideration in the meeting of the Authority to be held on 13th October, no wonder the appellants were misled and could not represent their case. In view of the above fact I would accept the two appeals and cancel the route permits granted to the respondents. The Regional Transport Authority would be well advised to observe the provisions of law and decide these applications in open public meeting at which the persons who may have represented against the applications get an opportunity of being heard either in the person or by a duly' authorised person.

A. H. Appeals accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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