Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 21 of 1959‑60, decided on 6th April 1960, District Lahore.

going into liquidation‑Permanent route permits of Society "dry" with "death" of Society‑Permits not transferable to Societies re organized succession‑Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 59.

, S. 59‑Transfer applica tion a formal matter.

A transfer application under section 59, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is a very formal matter regulated by an elaborate procedure prescribed under the section and the Rules framed thereunder.

, S. 57‑Provisions manda tory. The grant of permanent route permits is regulated under section 57, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939by a meticulous procedure the provisions of which are of mandatory character.

(d) Route permit‑Applicant depending for operation of permits applied for, on borrowed or hired vehicles‑Not generally entitled to grant of permit.

Sardar Muhammad 1qbal for Appellant.

Kh. Abdur Rahim for Iqbal Transport.

Khwaja Mahmood Sadiq for R. T. A.

This purports to be an appeal under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order of the R. T. A. Lahore dated 26‑I‑1960, canceling 9 temporary permits on the Lyallpur Sargodha route. The facts of the case are as follows.

The Chenab Transport Co‑operative Society existed from before the partition,‑ comprising 53 non‑Muslim Members, one Muslim Member and a smaller Transport Company. They possessed 20 permits before 1947, which were reduced to 9 after the partition. The Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, while examin ing the general question of re‑organization of Transport Co operative Societies in the former Province of the Punjab which had be come evacuee in character, addressed the R. T. A. on the subject; and in the correspondence that followed the Registrar clarified his object in his D. O. No. RA/61 dated the 3rd May 1957, to the effect that he wished "to arrive at an understanding with the Regional Transport Authority that the route permits belonging to the present Societies will be passed on to the new Societies which will be organized in their place". The R. T. A. replied by its D. O. dated the 31st December 1957, asking whether the Co‑operative Department were prepared to observe certain con ditions (which they detailed in the letter) and warning the Registrar that in case these conditions were not observed "it would not be possible for the Authority to retain the old route permits". The Registrar in course of time accepted the conditions laid down by the R: T. A., summoned his representative to discuss the matter at one of its meetings and gave its final reply in memorandum No. 2005/R. T. A. dated the 25th March 1958, as follows:‑

"Mr. A. U. Memon, Chief Auditor, who represented the Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, West Pakistan, was heard. The Registrar Co‑operative Societies, West Pakistan, was per mitted to adjust the evacuee Transport Co‑operative Societies in question as requested by him. He might, however, inform his action to the Rehabilitation Commissioner (General), West Pakistan, Lahore".

The Registrar interpreted this vague reply of the R. T. A. as an assurance that if he re-organized the Societies as required by the R. T. A., the R. T. A. would allow the permanent permits to be retained by the new Societies. He, therefore, cancelled the regis tration of the old Society and undertook a protracted programme of re‑organization. He duly appointed a liquidator under the Co‑operative Societies Act for the purpose. This reorganiza tion, however, took the best part of one year, during which period the R. T. A., gave temporary permits to the liquidator to continue the route services. The new Society, i.e., the petitioner, was born and registered on the 28th December 1959 and the R. T. A. was informed of it. But the R. T. A. now took the view that it could not re‑allot to the new Society the nine permanent permits which belonged to its predecessor. The argument of the R. T. A. was that the registration of the old Society having been cancelled on 31‑12‑1958, the old Society together with its permits completely ceased to exist; that the temporary permits were issued only to enable the liquidator to carry out the scheme of liquidation and to meet the liabilities of the defunct Society; that temporary permits could not continue indefinitely to the inconvenience of the public; and that the R. T. A. had not given any undertaking that the old permits would be revived and granted automatically to the v successor‑in‑interest of the defunct Society.

Upon the facts narrated above I have no doubt that the R. T. A. extended some sort of an assurance, implied in the correspondence exchanged between it and the Registrar, which encouraged the latter to re‑organized the Society; but the R. r. A. did not quite realise the implications of this assurance. When the old Society died, the permanent permits ended with it com pletely and finally. There was no case for the transfer of these) permits although the learned counsel for the appellant now argues that the permanent permits of the old Society had by this assurance been transferred to its unborn successor under section 59. I cannot accept this case because a transfer application under section 59 is a very formal matter regulated by an elaborate procedure prescribed t under the section and the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Alternatively, it has been argued, the question might be viewed as a possibility under section 61 i.e., as a case of transfer of permits on the death of a holder; but even this transfer is limited only to a period of three months. In fact under section 62 the duration of temporary permits could not be effective for a period exceeding four months whereas the liquidator actually operated the temporary permits for nearly a year. The R. T. A., therefore, could not have given a legal undertaking to the Registrar or the liquidator for resuscitation of the old permits even if it desired to do so. The grant of permanent route permits is regulat ed under section 57 by a meticulous procedure the provisions, which are of mandatory character. It could not be within the competence of the R. T. A. to give a valid assurance in direct conflict with the procedure prescribed under section 57. An additional reason which perhaps influenced R. T. A. in withdraw ing its sympathetic consideration was that the new Company possessed no vehicles of its own; and although the ownership of vehicles is not a condition precedent to the grant of permits, the R. T. A., as a matter of administrative policy, is now generally not favoring the parties which have to depend for operation of) permits on borrowed or hired vehicles. Whatever the reasons, as far as I am concerned I feel I cannot in law enforce a vague and ill‑considered assurance, given by the R. T. A. in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act so as to give the petitioner something like a prescriptive right to the permits on this route. However, all that the R. T. A. has ordered is that nine permits have been declared "Open", i.e., they are going to be notified to the public for fresh applications; the petitioner Society can apply for them as a new comer and take its chance along with the other applicants. In the meantime, five temporary permits have been granted to respondent No. 2 to carry on until the necessary arrangements are made for grant of permanent permits. This order, as it stands, is fair to the petitioner Society and to every body else.

In effect, the appeal fails.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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