Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appellate Side No. 181 of 1956‑57, decided on 23rd January 1958. District Multan.
S. 57---‑Grant of new route permit‑--Procedure.
Chaudhry Transport Bus Service, Appellants in this case, were plying on the Head Pallah--‑Chishtian--‑Dahranwala‑Chak 30/3‑R--Yateemwala Route on the basis of two temporary B Part Permits. They had applied, to the R. T. A. for the grant of permanent permits on this route. Shahid Bus Service, Respondents, had applied for five B Part Permits on the Chishtian--‑Dahranwala Yateemwala Route. They were not operating on any part of this route.
2. The order under appeal passed at the 7th meeting of the R. T. A. held on 15th, 16th and 17th August 1957, reads as under:
"Route No. 44.‑Head Pallah to Chishtian and Yateemwala via Chak No. 30/3‑R.
This route had already been considered by the Authority and in accordance with the decision of the Authority Chaudhry Transport Service would now be operating two B' part permits from Fort Abbas to Head Pallah via Yateemwala. This is an unscientific route and was cancelled by the Authority."
There is no reference to the exact item under which "this route had already been considered by the Authority." Presumably, the relevant decision is under "Route No. 33". This reads as under:‑
"Route No. 33‑Chishtian to Fort Abbas via Yateemwala.
Chaudhry Transport Bus Service and Shahid Bus Service, Regd., Chishtian were the only applicant companies for this route. No one appeared as objector.
Decision.
Chaudhry Transport Bus Service are the existing operators holding two B' part permits upto Yateemwala on Head Pallah to Yateemwala route as given as serial No. 46 of the list. The scientific terminus of this route should be Fort Abbas since this is a tehsil headquarter. The route, therefore, would be Chishtian to Fort Abbas via Yateemwala as given above. The portion of the route from Head Pallah to Chishtian had been eliminated from the existing route as the Authority had already granted ample permits on that section. The Authority decided to grant two B' part permits each to Chaudhry Transport Bus Service and Shahid Bus Service, Regd., Chishtian."
3. I am afraid, I have to say that these orders have been recorded in a very unsatisfactory manner. To begin with the first order does not indicate where precisely the matter had already been considered" by the Authority To make it clear and understandable. I feel, it was necessary to do so The words "this is an unscientific route and was cancelled by the Authority" presumably refers to the route Head Pallah to Yateemwala via Chak 30/3‑R mentioned at the top of the order and not to the route Fort Abbas to Head Pallah via Yateemwala mentioned in the order itself. If so, the proper place for this phrase was at the beginning of the order and not at its and where it could be and definitely was confusing.
4. The second order starts by saying that Chaudhry Transport Bus Service and Shahid Bus Service were the only applicant companies for this route viz. Chishtian to Fort Abbas via Yateemwala. This is incorrect as neither had applied for it. Again, the order refers to the route at Serial No. 46 of the list. If does not say, what this list was or what precisely was the route at its Serial No. 46. If it was the same as indicated under route No. 44, one would have expected that it would be referred to as such. In its absence, it creates confusion in one's mind as to what precisely the route at Serial No. 46 was. Since neither the Appellant nor the Respondent in this case had applied for Route No. 33, Chishtian to Fort Abbas via Yateemwala, it is not clear why the decision taken under it Was not recorded under Route No. 44 itself. At least one party viz. Appellants had applied for that route and it would have made more sense if the decision recorded under Route No. 33 had actually been recorded under Route No. 44.
5. As regards the actual route for which permits have been granted, the Authority may have had good reasons for cutting out the portion from Head Pallah to Chishtian, on the ground that it was already well provided for and for elongating it from Yateemwala to Fort Abbas on the consideration that Fort Abbas, being a Tehsil headquarter town, should be connected. A refer ence to the distances as well as to the other factors involved, is enough to show that the alterations made by the Authority in the routes applied for were of a very substantial nature and certainly beyond the scope of Rule 4.8 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules of 1940. The revised route was virtually a new route and, if the Authority desired to give permits only on this new route, the correct procedure for it, I feel, was to invite applications in the prescribed manner for this new route and to dispose of them under the provisions of section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. In the circumstances, I would upset both the orders o the R. T. A. referred to above and remand the case back to the for laying down the route, notifying it and for disposing of the: applications received therefore in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. Simultaneously, I would order that, until the R. T. A. have reconsidered and decided this matter, Chaudhry Transport Bus Service should continue to ply on the basis of B' part temporary permits from Head Pallah to Chishtian to Dahranwala to Chak 30/3‑R to Yateemwala, as they were doing before the date of the order appealed against. Chaudhry Transport Bus Service will not ply direct between Dahranwala and Yateemwala. Shahid Bus Service may also ply from Chislitian to Dahranwala to Yateemwala on the basis of two B Part temporary permits.
K. M. A. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer