Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 3 of 1962‑63, decided on 16th November 1962, District Jhang.

S. 60 (1)‑Cancellation or suspension of route permit‑Can be ordered only for reasons given in S. 60 (1)‑Cancellation without observing law‑Illegal.

Gul Muhammad Khan for Appellants.

Secretary, R. T. A., Lahore.

This is an appeal from Shorkot Transport Company under section 64 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the order of R. T. A., passed in its meeting held on 25/26th November 1960, cancelling the route permit granted to the appellants on Shorkot‑Bhassi route.

2. The facts, are that the appellant company was granted on B Part by the R. T. A. at its meeting held in May 1960. They claim to have operated on the route between May and September 1960. The route, however, became unmotorable due to floods thereafter. On 7th November 1960, the appellants filed an appli cation to the R. T. A. surrendering their permit temporarily until such time as the road became motorable again. The R. T. A., however, on 25th November 1960 cancelled the permit.

3. It is conceded by the Secretary, R. T. A., Lahore that as the law exists cancellation or suspension of a permit can take place only under section 60 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This provides five sub‑clauses giving the different reasons on which a permit may be suspended or cancelled. None of these obtain in the present case. Moreover, the proviso to this subsection lays down that:‑

"No permit shall be cancelled unless an opportunity is given to the holder of the permit to submit his explanation."

It is admitted that no such opportunity was granted to the appellants. Moreover, section 60 (2) provides that where a Trans port Authority cancels or suspends a permit, it shall give to the holder in writing its reason for the revocation or cancellation. This mandatory provision has also not been complied with.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that if they had been told that the permits were to be cancelled instead of being temporarily suspended as prayed for by them, they might possibly have made efforts to get the District Board and them selves through beldars to expedite repairs along the kacha road, and the contingency of cancellation would not have arisen. He also states that six miles of this route has now been made pacca and the remaining has been made motorable by the appellants at their own costs through beldars.

5. After giving the issues involved my earnest consideration I must hold that cancellation, in the circumstances, is irregular in that the mandatory provisions of the law have not been com plied with. Moreover, I am of the opinion that there is every thing to gain in allowing the appellants to operate on this route of which 3/4th is still kacha. This will help towards providing a service for the travelling public of a cut off area. The appellants seem to be well‑set for the grant, since out of 12 B Parts sanction ed in their fayour, all emanate from the District Headquarter at Jhang and 2 B Parts in fact are from Jhang to Shorkot. The appellants are, therefore, in a position to carry the travelling public expeditiously in their own lorries from cut off Bhassi to the District Headquarters at Jhang, by coordinating the timings of their existing Jhang‑Shorkot timings.

6. This being the position I accept the appeal, set aside the order of the R. T. A., Lahore and direct that the one B Part in question be granted to the appellant company.

K.M. A. Appeal 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.