Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 26 of 1955‑56, decided on 25th June, 1956, District R. T. A., Multan.

S. 64‑Appeals ‑Against same order‑Not disposed of together‑Appeal not disposed of may be heard later, only however, on a point not covered by the appeal disposed of.

There were two appeals by two different companies against the same order and against same respondent. One appeal was disposed of without the other one being put up before the Board. The latter appeal was allowed to be argued later, only however, on a new important argument which had not found a mention, in the previous order made in appeal.

S. 43‑B (2) Permits cancelled‑New permit cannot be granted allowing an extra service on route including route for which permits were cancelled.

When the permits of a particular operator are cancelled, the Regional Transport Authority cannot grant that Company any new permit in future which may allow that Company to operate an extra service in such a way that it would cover the route to which the cancelled permits had related.

Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.

Abdul Qayyum Khan for Respondent No. 1.

Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority for Respondent No. 2.

‑The appeal is against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Multan, dated 9th December 1955, granting 3 route permits to the Respondent No. 2 on Head Pallah‑Chichawatni via Burewala route. It appears that another Transport Company had appealed against the same order and Mr. Nasir Ahmed decided on 23rd March 1956 that the number of route permits should be decreased from 3 to1.

The present appeal was not put up by the office on the day on which the other appeal was heard. The counsel for the present appellant was the counsel for the other appellant Company also and he should have normally requested Mr. Nasir Ahmad (my predecessor) to take up the two appeals together. I would have normally thought that the present appellant would not be advancing any new arguments against the order under appeal and would have, therefore, given a decision concurrent with that of my predecessor. I, however, find that an important legal argument, which the appellant wants to advance, has not found mention in the judgment of my predecessor. I shall, therefore, deal with the matter at some length.

The legal argument of the appellant‑Company centres round the phraseology adopted in subsection (2) of section 43‑B of the Motor Vehicles Act. This subsection deals with the results of the cancellation of stage carriage permits by the Provincial Government. The subsection comes into operation in this case, because some permits, which had been sanctioned in favour of the Company cited as Respondent No. 1, were cancelled by the Provincial Government in September 1955, and those permits had permitted the Company to ply services between Burewala and Chichawatni. This strip of route is a part of the route for which the permits in dispute were sanctioned on 9th December 1955.

Subsection (2) of section 43‑B reads as follows :‑

"Where the Provincial Government has cancelled any permit or class of permits under clause (III) of subsection (1) of section 43, the Provincial Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority shall notwithstanding anyting contained in this Act have no jurisdiction in respect of such permit or class of permits".

When the permits of a particular operator are cancelled, the Regional Transport Authority cannot grant that Company any new permit in future which may allow that Company to operate an extra service in such a way that it would cover the route to which the cancelled permits had related. In the present case, 3 new permits were given to the Company, Respondent No. 1, in December, 1955, and these permits would have authorized the Company to ply service on a route including this strip Burewala‑Chichawatni. This is not permissible under the above mentioned subsection.

In the above circumstances, I hold that the Regional Transport Authority's order, dated 9th December 1955, in favour of Respondent No. 1 was in excess of the jurisdiction of the Authority. My predecessor has already reduced the number of permits sanctioned from 3 to 1. When the jurisdiction was lacking, even this permit cannot be allowed to continue in force and I hereby cancel it. The question does arise whether this permit should be considered valid for the part of the route lying between Burewala and Head Pallah. On this subject I would leave the Regional Transport Authority to come to a fresh decision in the light of all circumstances concerning it and other companies which are operating in that locality. I direct accordingly.

A. H. Appeal 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.