Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 8 of 1956‑57, decided on 20th May 1957, District Rawalpindi.

---

"Route" denotes regular line of travel or passage‑Permit‑holder can ply only on one or other of two roads‑Permit‑holder plying their buses on both roads since 18 months without objection by R. T. A.---‑Route permits not to be suspended under such circumstances.

Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.

Secretary, R. T. A. Rawalpindi for Respondent.

The R. T. A. Rawalpindi found the Appellant plying 8 non stop Stage Carriage between Daska and Sialkot via Ghunike in stead of via Sambrial. The portion Daska to Sialkot falls between the sanctioned route of the Appellants, Lahore‑Gujranwala Sialkot. For doing this, the R. T. A. decided to suspend Appellant's four route permits on this route for a period of two months; the Authority also decided that, in future, Appellant should run all their services between Daska and Sialkot via Sambrial and not via Ghunike.

2. The Act does not define the word "route". In common parlance, however, the word "route" denotes a regular line of travel or passage. It is admitted that the permit in this case did not specify any particular towns or stations between Daska and Sialkot through which the route should pass. It is thus not clear on what basis the R. T. A. held that the Appellants were plying on an unauthorised route.

3. Appellants have produced copies of their time‑tables to show that, among the services which they operate on the Lahore -Gujranwala‑Sialkot via Daska and Sambrial route (total distance 82 miles), they used to run four non‑stop services on the portion Daska to Sialkot via Sambrial. They have also produced copies of later time‑tables to show that, after the construction of the new road between Daska and Sialkot via Ghunike, they have been operating these non‑stop Services via Ghunike since some 18 months or so as this was a shorter route by 10 miles.

4. It is true that the stations via which the Appellants were to run their services between Daska and Sialkot are not given in the route permit but it is also clear that the word route" itself connotes a regular line of travel or passage and not two or more. So, while it would have been correct for the Appellant to ply on one or the other of the two roads, they could not ply on both. Unfortunately, this is precisely what they have been doing i.e., they are plying their non‑stop Services via Ghunike and their ordinary Services via Sambrial. To this extent, the action of the Appellant is not, in my opinion, in conformity with the terms under which they were to ply on this route.

5. On the other hand, although the Appellants submitted their time‑tables which indicated that they were plying their non stop Services via the shorter route and were, in fact, running on this route over 18 months, the R. T. A. never objected to it before this. The reason for this is not clear and seems to suggest a certain amount of acquiescence by the R. T. A. in a fait accompli.

6. I, therefore, consider that both sides are equally to blame. Accordingly. I do not think it would be fair to take action against the Appellants for their contraventions in the past particularly, as it appears there are other Companies also which have been plying via Ghunike but, in whose case, R. T. A. have not considered it necessary to take any action.

7. Counsel for the Appellant has stated that, during the pendency of this appeal, the R. T. A. have authorised them to ply four non‑stop Services of theirs on the Lahore‑Gujranwala -Sialkot route via Ghanike. In view of this, no relief is required against the order of the R. T. A. directing them to ply their vehicles in future from Daska to Sialkot via Sambrial. In view of what has been stated above, however, I set aside the order of the Authority regarding suspension for a period of two months.

K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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