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. 131 of 1960‑61, decided on 11th February 1962, District Lahore.
‑Minimum of 2 ("B" Part) to be granted to individual operators in case of long routes.
‑No review lies against order of Appellate authority.
‑Guiding principles for grant of route permits.
Salmat Ullah for Muhammad Nazeer Inayat Ullah & Co.
Muhammad Iqbal for New Khan Transport Co.
Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Tariq Goods and Passengers Trans port Co.
Dr. Javid Iqbal on behalf of Kh. Abdur Rahim for Iqbal Transport Service.
Muhammad Salim for New Kisan Transport Co. and Khawaja Transport Co.
Muhammad Siddique for Evergreen Transport Co.
Mahmud Ahmad Qureshi for ‑Ahmed Transport Co.
Habib Ullah Head Clerk for R. T. A. Lahore.
The Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, in its meeting held on the 16th, 17th, 18th and 24th February 1961, granted one B' Part each for the four route permits advertised on the
Lyallpur‑Leiah to the following out of applicant companies: ‑‑
(1) Khawaja Transport Co. Lyallpur.
(2) Ahmed Transport Co. Lahore.
(3) Tariq Transport Co. Lahore.
(4) New Khan Transport Co. Lahore.
2. (1) Messrs Muhammad Nazeer Inayatullah & Co. (2) Tariq Goods and Passenger Transport Co. (3) New Kisan Transport Co. (4) The Evergreen Transport Co. (5) Iqbal Transport Service, and (6) Pakistan Transport Co., have come up in appeal from this order claiming that they have preferential rights over the four selected companies. The New Khan Trans port Co., Khawaja Transport Co., and Tariq Transport Co., have also appealed that it is un‑economic to run a transport service over such a long route with one B' part and have prayed that they may be granted an additional B' part in the public interest. In this single order I shall dispose of all the nine appeals.
3. I will make a few general observations before dealing with the Individual appeals. The Lyallpur‑Leiah route is a 167 mile inter‑regional route with 2/3rd mileage lying in the Lahore and 1/3rd in the Multan regions. The traffic requirements of the route, I am informed, were assessed at six B' parts and on this basis, 4 B' parts were to be granted by the Lahore and two by the Multan, Regional Transport Authorities.
4. I have already in my order dated 11‑12‑1961, in R. O. A. M. No. 123 of 1960‑61, laid down the principle that in the case of long routes of this nature, a minimum of 2 B' parts should be granted to individual operators not only as an economic unit, but also to enable them to serve the traveling public efficiently. In that order I deprecated the practice, sometimes followed, of granting single B' parts to individual applicants over such long routes. Unfortunately in the present case also, the Regional Transport Authority has granted single B' parts to four different concerns over even a longer route than the 130 miles, Lahore‑Head Sulemanki route of that case. I would, therefore, have had to discharge the duty of scrutinising the merits of the appellants in the field and of selecting the most deserving two concerns for the grant of 2 B' parts each and eliminating those less deserving, and I had done so, when it was brought to my notice that Ahmed Transport Co., had been extremely clever and had wrangled to get their appeal singled out and placed before the Appellate Authority out of the 10 appeals from the R. T. A.'s order, as though none other existed. Thereby they obtained a virtually ex parte decision that their B' parts be doubled, as they could not ply efficiently or economically over this 167 mile route with their one B' part. In these circumstances, Sardar Iqbal, counsel for the appellants, has argued at length that this act of Ahmed Transport Co. is suppressio veri and is tantamount to a fraud on the Appellate Authority, as they did not reveal that they were an entirely new concern having only 4 vehicles, which after the doubling of B' parts left them one reserve vehicle only. He admitted that since there was no provision for a review of the order of the Appellate Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, the second B' part cannot be challenged. He, however, argued that as his clients were opposed to the grant of the initial B' part and had appealed against the R. T. A.'s decision in respect of it, it was perfectly open to the Authority to cancel the initial grant of one B' part to them and so prevent them deriving undue benefit. Although I find that the action of Ahmed Transport Co. in getting their appeal taken up singly and separately from all the appeals for the restricted number of routes, without disclosing the facts, to be improper, yet I am not prepared to cancel the doubled grant made without knowledge of all these circumstances by the Appellate Authority. As I shall mention later, there are other methods under which this matter can be properly dealt with. The fact that two of the four route permits have been disposed of already in this manner, however, means that I will have now to select the most deserving one concern for the grant of one B' part out of the remaining 9 appellants.
5. Past experience as Chairman of three R. T. A.'s and as Secretary Communications and Works, West Pakistan, has shown the necessity of guiding principles in amplification of section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being laid down for dealing equitably with cases like the present or in which the number of applicants are ten times the number of B' parts. R. T. A.'s are often faced with this situation, as people under the impression that enormous profits can be made, are more or less treating route permit grant cases as though they were putting for a lottery. The authoritative laying down of the essential principles will, I am confident, be of assistance to the R. T. A.'s in removing all sorts of abuses and I propose to do so in this order.
6. The R. T. A. will, of course, have first determined the number of route permits to cater for the traffic requirements in accordance with the road conditions in the light of section 47 when it advertised the routes. If during the R. T. A.'s meeting and subsequent reports, it is of the opinion that this number should be raised or reduced, it can do so and fix the number it considers necessary. Thereafter in my opinion, the basic criteria to be applied in making the selection are
(I) All concerns old and new:
(i) In the case of all concerns, grants normally be made by the R. T. A. of origin and in the case of inter‑regional routes, out of the R. T. A. concern's proportionate quota in the route. In the case of new concerns, routes should preferably be within the Division, unless there are special reasons to the contrary. Adoption of this as a general principle, should make for an equitable selection out of the tremendous number of companies, which are applying now‑a‑days. Of course in the case of desert or un‑remunerative routes, where local operators having preferential claims are not forthcoming, outsiders can be welcomed in the public interest.
(ii) 1n the case of all applicants, particularly new concerns, they should not be given so many permits that their reserve fleet for breakdowns etc. is reduced below 25 per cent.
(iii) The minimum number of permits for routes above 100 miles in the interest of efficient operation, should be 2 B' parts.
(iv) No concern should be given a larger number of permits than applied for, as larger grants would be illegal.
(II) Existing Operators:
(a) The standing and experience of the concern ; its applications and relationships with other concerns, its head quarters and number of important centres where it is operating already and has workshop and other facilities.
(b) Whether the concern operates over part of the advertised route or a route contiguous to it. The added facility to the public by the grant of the permits to it rather than to other operators having no connections with the route in question, including the factors mentioned under section 47 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, such as the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken'. The practice of giving single B' parts on absolutely unconnected and disjointed routes e.g., Rawal pindi‑Gujrat one B' part, Lahore‑Bahawalnagar one B' part, Lyallpur‑Leiah one B' part must be avoided, as contrary to the principle of economic and efficient operation.
(c) The number, make and models of buses of the concern‑
(i) owned ; and
(ii) possessed under (i) hire purchase ; and (ii) lease vis- -vis the number of B' parts issued to it. The reserve fleet necessary for running of its existing services and the number, model and year of make: of surplus vehicles available for the proposed new services.
(d) Past operational record of the service, whether it ha been guilty, through negligence or otherwise, of contravention of the High Way Code and traffic laws. Particular regard under this item must be given to comparative freedom from accidents in which the transport company or its employees can be held blameworthy.
(e) The operation by the applicant of other transport services and in particular of un‑remunerative services in conjunction with remunerative services.
(f) The number of permits granted to it during the last three years or to its sister or daughter concerns, if there are any and whether they have run those services satisfactorily in the public interest and have provided necessary amenities for the safety and welfare of the traveling public, especially female and un‑protected passengers.
(III) New Concerns.
(i) New concern should at least be given shorter ordinary routes of below 100 miles until they have established their efficiency and organizational capacity in running these routes. They may then be given longer routes.
(ii) Old and experienced operators have been granted remune rative with un‑remunerative routes in the past, in accordance with the principles laid down under section 47 (1) (e) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As against this new concerns are applying only for remunerative routes along metalled roads and hardly any of them wishes to apply for Katcha routes in order to connect the wilderness with civilisation. The public of backward and outlying tracts are, therefore, suffering all over the Province. R. T. A.'s would, therefore, be justified in adver tising a number of remunerative with un‑remunerative routes and giving a definite preference to such new concerns as are willing to run un‑remunerative routes with their remunerative routes. This should, in fact, be one criteria as to whether the company is not only interested in profits but is also interested in doing its duty in reducing the suffering of the traveling public in cut‑off areas and routes off the beaten track.
(iii) The considerations under (ii) above for existing operators may also be applied mutatis mutandis to new concerns, where applicable.
7. After careful scrutiny of the appeals in the light of principles enumerated above, I find that the most deserving company for the grant of the two B' parts, which remain within the R. T. A. Lahore's share, is New Khan Transport Co. The Secretary R. T. A. has confirmed that this company is already running on 67 miles of this route from Lyallpur to Athara Hazari and have ample cover of buses for these two permits. They had applied for the grant of two more B' parts, but I accept their appeal to the extent of granting them one additional B' part only. Their appeal is decided accordingly. Iqbal Transport Co., appellant would be the second best in order of merit, as it is running along 47 miles of ‑this route from Lyallpur to Jhang and have also a number of spare buses. Their claims, however, are less than those of Messrs New Khan Transport Co. Their appeal is, therefore, rejected, as Ahmed Transport Co., have interloped on their claims. In future grants in this area, the R. T. A. may bear this in mind.
8. The cases of Tariq Transport Company and Khawaja Transport Co., who had also been granted one B' part each and had applied for an additional B' part, are much weaker. The former has registered headquarters at Lahore, and is reported by the Secretary R. T. A. to have no connections with the Lyallpur‑Leiah route. The latter is a new concern and cannot be considered to have as good claims as the New Khan Transport Co., over a long route of this type. The R. T. A. may consider applications of this concern for smaller routes as suggested under paragraph 6 (111) and to reward it later by long routes if it proves to have made good as a successful transport operator. The appeals of these two companies are therefore, not only rejected, but on merits their single B' parts are also cancelled.
9. The appeals of all the other transport companies are rejected for the reasons already stated by the R. T. A. in its order. Their grounds of appeal have not revealed any reason why I should set aside the R. T. A.'s order in respect of them. In fact the Secretary, R. T. A. explained to me that most of the appellants have been given quite liberal grants of additional permits at the R. T. A.'s meeting held on 9th and 10th February and should be able to make full use of the surplus vehicles with them.
10. It remains to consider the locuna in the law which prevents action being taken to set right the two B' parts obtained by Ahmed Transport Co. through Suppressio veri and con sequent misleading of the Appellate Authority. It is time that amendment to section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act be considered in order to include provisions for revisions, as has been done in India, and review also, where misleadings etc. come to light. As there is no such power at present, the R. T. A. Lahore, and the‑ Appellate Authority can take note of the manner, as mentioned in para. 4 supra, in which this new concern with headquarters at Lahore, with no experience and having only four buses was able to secure doubling of their single B' parts on this route in addition to their single B' part on the totally disconnected routes of 162 miles from Lahore to Bahawalnagar virtually ex parte, in contravention of principles laid down under paras. 6 (11) (b), 6 (III) (i), and 6 (1) (i), (ii) above. Thus other applicants with much better claims could not secure any grant at all. Steps have been taken to ensure that this sort of a thing does not happen again and that all appeals from the same order of a R. T. A. in respect of a route are taken up together, unless the Appellate Authority thinks otherwise.
11. A copy of this order may be sent to the Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, the Provincial Transport Authority and it may be put up to the Appellate Authority also if and when that authority is considering any appeals by or against the Ahmed Transport Co.
K. M. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer