Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 37 of 1957‑58, decided on 7th April 1959, District Multan.

Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 64‑Appeal‑Board of Revenue deciding certain point and remanding case for fresh decision on other points‑R. T. A. not competent to reopen point already decided by Board of Revenue.

Ch. Fateh Muhammad for Mahmood Ali Kasuri for Appellant.

Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondents.

This is an appeal against the order of the R. T. A. Multan, dated 3rd and 4th October 1957, by which it was ordered that the appellant can apply afresh for the grant of route permit on Multan‑Jhang via Abdul Hakim route, which could then be considered by the Authority after necessary preliminaries of law had been completed.

2. The facts of this case are that the appellant's company applied for the grant of Stage Carriage permits on certain routes and the Authority in its meeting held on 9‑12‑1955, sanctioned an 4 B' part to the appellant's company on Multan‑Jhang via Abdul Hakim route, with the following observations "The appellant's company is a registered body produced a bank balance certificate, and is in a position to finance the transport service. The company has applied for Multan‑Jhang via Abdul Hakim route which is operated by Multan Transport Co. Ltd., Multan which has not a good record of service. Moreover, there is a great public demand for adding more services on this route. The Authority decided to grant four permits on Multan‑Jhang via Abdul Hakim. The application for the rest of the route was rejected." 3. The Multan Transport Company, Multan (Respondent No. .2) filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, against the order of the R. T. A., granting permits to the appellant's company on the following grounds :‑

(a) that no opportunity was given to them to produce their objections at the public hearing as laid down under section 57(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act ;

(b) that the original application was for a different route namely Multan to Jhang via Chichawatni and the permit had been granted for an other route namely Multan to Jhang via Abdul Hakim.

Nasir Ahmad Esquire, C. S. P., the then Member, Board of Revenue, by his order dated 23‑3‑1956, set aside the order of the Authority and remanded the case to the Authority on the basis of objection at (a) above, which was considered to be a valid one. As regards objection (b) above, the learned Member, Board of Revenue observed as follows:‑

"The original application of the respondent (now appellant) was for a different route namely Multan‑Jhang via Chicha Watni and the permit has been granted for another route namely Multan‑Jhang via Abdul Hakim. This change was not 'permissible under the law. Now the respondent company had made several applications, one of which was for Multan‑Lyallpur via Abdul Hakim and Jhang and it was open to R. T. A. to grant permit for a portion of this route, namely Multan to Jhang as has been done. This objection therefore has no force." '

Subsequently the appellant's company preferred a review petition before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed on 23‑7‑56, on the grounds that the Board of Revenue was not competent to review the order passed in appeal by another Member of the Board of Revenue, under the Motor Vehicles Act. During the pendency of these proceedings, the appellant's company preferred a Writ Petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore. It was dismissed by the Division Bench on 24‑5‑1956 with the following observations:‑

"Mr. Nasir Ahmad has remanded the case for re‑hearing and therefore intervention is ‑tot necessary. Further it is incorrect that no representation was made by the respondent to the R. T. A., in respect of the route Multan‑Lyallpur via Abdul Hakim."

4. The case remained pending with the R. T. A., till 4‑10‑1957, when the matter was considered by the Authority in the light of the observations made by the Member, Board of Revenue, in his order dated 23‑3‑1956. In the intervening period the appellant's company made several representations to the higher Authorities and even served a notice under section 80 of the C. P. C., on the main ground that the invest ment of the company amounting to Rs. 2 lacs was blocked and the newly‑purchased buses were the victim of rainy season and heat. All these representations were sent to the office of the R. T. A., Multan and little or no attention was paid by the R. T. A., office to attend to these representations, so much so, that the Provincial Transport Controller, in his Memo No. 202 T‑6‑57/3729, dated 29‑5‑1957, addressed to the Chairman of the R. T. A., Multan remarked as follows

"It has been contended by the company that their vehicles are lying idle since long for want of decision of the R. T. A., Multan. You will agree that in these circumstances when there is dearth of new vehicles, full use should be made of all available stock in the country and new vehicles should not be allowed depreciate without taking the necessary utility from them to save the wastage of National Wealth."

The above discussion will show that the appellant's company has not been treated fairly by the Regional Transport Authority, Multan. The remand order was passed on 23‑3‑1956 and the case of the appellant's company was taken up by the Authority on 3rd and 4th October 1957. In the circumstances of the case, justice demanded that this case should have been taken up by the Authority immediately subsequent to the remand order, inasmuch as the appellant's company had been persistently crying that their investment amounting to Rs. 2 lacs was blocked and their newly‑purchased buses were the ictim of rainy season and heat. These factors required immediate attention, because there is a dearth of new vehicles and full use should have been made of all available stock in the country and that new vehicles should not have been allowed to depreciate without taking the necessary utility from them. The remand order was passed by my predecessor purely on a technical ground and the objection of the respondent's Company that the original appli cation of the appellant's company was far a different route namely, Multan to Jhang via Chichawatni and the permit was granted for another route namely, Multan to Jhang via Abdul Hakim, was disposed of by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, in the following words:‑

"This objection therefore has no force."

Subsequently, the Authority considered the same objection of respondent, on which the learned Member, Board of Revenue, had given a definite finding and the order of the Authority thus amounted to the review of the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, so far as this particular objection was concerned. The position taken by the Regional Transport Authority, that the previous applications of the appellants had become in fructuous was not correct, inasmuch as notices sent to them on 28‑6‑1957, 19‑7‑1957 and 20‑7‑1957, clearly showed that their original applications were very much under consideration and

5. The respondent's counsel has not been able to con trovert the objection raised by the appellants in this case. In the circumstances the appeal is accepted and the decision of the Authority dated 3rd and 4th October 1957, is set aside and that of order dated 9‑12‑1955 is restored.

6. The counsel for Multan Transport Company (respondent No. 2) also contended that a decision in favour of the appellant's company might affect other, transport companies who are already running on the whole or a part of the route in question. This contention carries no weight for the reason that those Transport Companies which are likely to be affected by this order should have made applications for being impleaded as party to this case, which they have failed to do and the present order is equitable in the circumstances of the case.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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