Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 4 of 1959‑60, decided on 10th February 1960,

District Rawalpindi.

(a) Route permit‑Terms of notification‑R. T. A. can go beyond terms if there are good and sufficient reasons.

(b) Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940,8. 4.3‑One out of four members not taking part in discussion and determination of question before R. T. A.‑Decision by three void.

This order will dispose of six connected appeals R. O. A. M. Nos. 4, 11, 21, 23, 10 and 16 of 1959‑60 against the order of the R. T. A. Rawalpindi passed in their meeting held on the 24th and 25th September 1959 granting one 'B' Part permit to each of the following:

(1) Pak Ex‑Servicemen Transport Company, Rawalpindi.

(2) Peoples' Transport Company Liaqat Market, Rawalpindi.

(3) Pak Haj Transport Company, Rawalpindi.

(4) Standard Transport Company, Noon House, Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi and rejecting the applications of the following appellants Companies

(1) Pindi‑Hazara Transport Company, (2) Murree Hill Transport Company, (3) Pothwar Transport Company,

(4) Pak Haj Transport Company,

(5) Mushtaq Transport Company,

(6) Pindi‑Murree Transport Company,

2. This is a newly opened route and applications were invited from Co‑operative Societies, Registered Companies etc. up to 10‑8‑59 by Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi. The order of Regional Transport Authority, gives the reasons for pindi grant of permits. It was argued by Rawalpindi‑Murree Trans Ikram port Company, Rawalpindi and Pindi‑Hazara Transport Company Limited, Rawalpindi, that they were previous operators in the neighboring route of Pindi‑Murree and the permits should have been issued to them. The Regional Transport Authority have pointed out that both these companies have large number of permits and they could not be allowed to divert their attention and vehicles, without affecting their efficiency on existing routes. Besides, it was said, it was undesirable to shut out the new comers on a new route. Pak Haj Transport Company has been granted one B part permit on account of certain public considerations, but they have no very special claims on this route, and there seems no reason to defer from R. T. A. in placing them on par with other companies to which permits were granted.

3. The reasons given by the Regional Transport Authority for grant of permits to different parties appear adequate, but in case of No. 4 above i.e., Standard Transport Company, Noon House, Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi, there seems to have been a material irregularity. This company was not registered by the last date for submission of applications, as required by the terms of Notification issued by R. T. A. It is true, as held by me in another case (R. O. A. M. No. 3/59/60, Taxila Ex‑Service men Co‑operative Mullipu poses Societies v. A. Rahman & Company) that it is open to a Regional Transport Authority to go beyond the terms of its notification, for good and sufficient reasons. In this case the grounds on which the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi waived the terms of notification have not been recorded. Besides, it has been pointed out that one of the members of the R. T. A., "withdrew from participating in discussion as well as in arriving at a decision on applicant's claim" when the request of Standard Transport Company, Noon House, Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi, was considered. This meant that the number of members who considered and disposed of this application was reduced from 4 to 3, and thus provisions of the amended Rule 4.3 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, relating to quorum were not adhered to. It was argued on behalf of Standard Transport Company that although the member concerned withdrew from participation in discussion and decision, he was actually present, and the number of mem bers present should be taken as 4. This plea cannot be accepted. A member cannot be legally both present and absent. If he formally with there from discussion and determination of a question before R. T. A., he cannot be legally considered to be present at the time of the decision of that question.

It has also been argued that the omission to have the prescribed quorum is only a procedural irregularity and cases were cited to support the view that mere failure to abide by strict procedure does not invalidate an order of Regional Transport Authority, functioning as an administrative tribunal. If this plea were accepted, in its entirety, Regional Transport Authority could ignore all the rules framed for proper working of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Act. Provision relating to quorum is contained in the rules framed under the Punjab Motor Vehicles Act, and if such an important provision is ignored, the proceed ing cannot be held to have been normal and lawfully valid. I hold that the part of the proceedings of R. T. A. in which only three instead of four members participated was void, on account of lack of quorum. I, accordingly, accept the appeals so far as they relate to grant of one 'B' part Permit to Standard Transport Company, Noon House, Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi. That part of this order of Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi which relates to grant of a 'B' part permit to Standard Transport Company is declared void, and the case is remanded to the Regional Transport Authority for disposal of one 'B' Part Permit. Appeals in respect of other respondent companies are

hereby rejected.

K. M. A. Appeals 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.