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.
Appeal No. 70 of 1959‑60, decided on 7th February 1961.
(a) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 63‑Routes falling within jurisdiction of two R.T.A's‑One R.T.A. granting permits‑Concurrence of other R.T.A. essential though previous concurrent not necessary.
(b) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S.45‑Company apply to R. T. A. in whose jurisdiction it has its office.
Salamatullah for Ahmed Transport Company.
Abdur Rahins and Muhammad Siddiq for Raja Bus. Service.
Abdur Rahim for Gonda[ Bus Service and Akram Sulta Transport.
Sardar Shah Bukhari for the New Khan Transport Compact;
Abdul Jalil, Secretary, R. T. A., Lahore.
Nazir Ahmad for R. T. A. Rawalpindi.
This order will dispose of the seven connected Transport Appeals Nos. 70, 71, 79, 85, 91, 126 and 140 of 1959‑60. The facts involved are identical and relate to a decision of the R.T.A., Rawalpindi, who declined by their order passed in their meeting held on 23‑1‑1960, to countersign the permits issued to the appel lants by the T. R. A., Lahore for various routes which fall within the jurisdiction of both the authorities. The material facts for consideration of these appeals are as follows. The R. T. A., Lahore in their meeting held on 27th to 29th May 1957 issued a large number of permits including the following five in favour of the appellants.
| Name of the appellants Company. | The route for which the permit was issued.
| No.of permits | ||
| Ahmed Transport Company. | Lyallpur‑Sialkot via Sheikhupura. | 2 | ||
| Akram Sultan Transport Company. | Lahore‑Gujranwala. | 1 | ||
|
|
| Subsequently increased to two by R. T. A. | ||
|
|
| Lahore,in their Meeting held on24‑2‑59
| ||
| Raja Bas Service | Lyallpur‑Sialkot | 2 | ||
| Gondal Bus Service | Sargodha‑Chakwal. Sargodha‑Gujrat. | 2 | ||
| The New Khan | Lahore‑Rawalpindi. | 2 | ||
| Transport Company.
|
|
| ||
.
The R. T. A. issued a letter on 26th November 1958 inform ing the five appellants that the R. T. A., Rawalpindi, had con curred in the decision of the Lahore Authority granting these permits and the appellants should produce the required vehicles with their fitness certificates. Subsequently, however, the Lahore Authority directed the five appellants to approach the Rawalpindi Authority for counter‑signature required under section r 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7 he Rawalpindi Authority declined to countersign the permits for various reasons given in their order passed on 23‑1‑1960. It is this order which is under appeal.
The main stand which is taken up by the Rawalpindi Autho rity is. that their previous concurrence had not been obtained by the Lahore Authority when granting these permits. A previous concurrence is not really required under the law, though a con currence is required. It is strange that a letter was issued by the R. T. A., Lahore, saying that the Rawalpindi Authority had con curred in the grants but the records of the latter Authority do not bear it out. The next point taken up by the Rawalpindi Authority is that a major part of all the routes lies in their juris diction. This is not correct except in the case of Lahore‑Rawal pindi route. In any case the five appellants who have their offices in. the jurisdiction of the Lahore Authority are required to apply to this Authority under the provisions of section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The third point put forward by the Rawal pindi Authority is that their survey did not indicate the need for any additional permits on these routes. It may here be mentioned that three of these routes are entirely new for which no permits had so far been issued viz. Lyaflpur‑Sialkot, Sargodha‑Chakwal and Sargodha‑Gujrat. Regarding the remaining two routes there were only, two previous operators on the Lahore‑Rawalpindi route the Government Transport Service and Mechanical Himalaya Transport Service. No direct service is operating between Lahore and Gujranwala and it was only the operators on the Lahore‑Gujrat and Lahore‑Rawalpindi routes which carry passengers for Gujranwala, and other intervening places. It may also be added that the Lahore Authority had carried out a survey of traffic requirements and according to them there was need for transport facilities on these routes. It is quite obvious that in order to travel from Sargodha to Chakwal or, from Sorgodha to Gujrat one has to follow a circuitous railway route which takes longer time and more money. It should also be accepted that there is need for more transport facilities between Lahore ‑Rawal pindi, ever since the latter has become the capital of the country. As regards the other two routes one of which Lyallpur‑Sialkot is entirely a new one, it is somewhat difficult to say definitely whether there is need for increased transport facilities.
As a result of the above discussion I would accept the appeal of Gondal Bus Service and the New Khan Transport Co. and direct the R. T. A , Rawalpindi to countersign the permits for the routes sanctioned to them by the Lahore Authority. As regards the appeals of Ahmad Transport Company, Akram Sultan Trans port Company and Raja Bus Service the two R. T. As. should carry out a survey and the R. T. A. Rawalpindi will then come to a fresh decision about countersignatures. In the meanwhile the three appellants will continue their services as it would be in the public interest that the existing facilities which they are already enjoying should not be curtailed.
K. M. A. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer