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.
Revision No. 269 of 1961-62, decided on 27th March 1963; District Lahore.
-----
---New conditions cannot be imposed after grant of permit.
S. 64-Appeal lies against order imposing new conditions after grant of permit.
Kh. Abdur Rahim for Lahore-Harike Motor Transport Co. Ltd., The Okara Bus Service Ltd. Okara, Chaudhri Transport Bus Service Ltd., Hasilpur, The Lower Bari Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Montgomery, The Multan Transport Co. Ltd., Multan and The Muslim Vehari & Vehniwal Bus Service.
Nayyar Sultan Ahmad for Maqbool Ahmad for Zamindari Shaheen Bus Service, Bahawalpur and Maqbool Javed Transport Co. Ltd., Bahawalpur.
Munir Ahmad for Messrs Pak Soldiers' Transport Co. Ltd., Bahawalnagar.
Malik Amjad Hussain, Secretary R. T. A., Multan.
These nine appeals-R. O. A. M. Nos. 266, 269, 276, 274, 277, 278, 279, 280 and 283 of 1961-62 are against the decision of R. T. A., Multan, taken on the 31st of May 1962. Since all the appellants are affected by the same decision and the same points of fact and law are involved in all the appeals, they are being disposed of by this one order.
R. T. A., Multan, in their meeting held on the 31st of May 1962, took the following decision:
"(4) Conversion of Services of Stage Carriage Permits into Particular Stage Carriage Permits.
(i) The new road transport policy received from the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority, West Pakistan vide his confidential memo. No. 3140-45/T, dated the 5th April 1962 contemplates that henceforth particular stage carriage permits should be granted.
(ii) The position with regard to the conversion of existing services of stage carriage permits into particular stage carriage permits was examined at length. The Authority was of the view that no improvements in passenger road transport could be achieved unless the existing services of stage carriage permits were not converted into particular stage carriage permits had led to many evil practices by the permit-holders. A large number of buses were plied by the existing operators without route permits. A number of bus companies were keeping buses almost twice the permits held by them. It was obvious that such a large number of buses could not remain idle especially when these were not owned by the, operators them selves. These buses were usually owned by the persons other than the permit-holders and were taken by the companies on commission basis. The efforts of this Authority to enforce the maximum limit of 25% extra vehicles failed on account of legal flaws and other technicalities. In view of these circum stances, the Authority decided as a question of principle that all the existing services of stage carriage permits should be con verted forthwith into particular stage carriage permits. The Secretary was accordingly directed to implement the change over as early as possible."
The only question for consideration in the present appeals is whether the decision taken by the R. T. A., to revise the existing policy could be applied to the vehicles for which permits were already in existence. In the first place, it is an accepted principle of law that when any contract or agreement is altered, the parties concerned should be heard. In this case the agreement was being altered to the disadvantage of the permit-holders and yet they were not afforded an opportunity of presenting their point of view. No ex parte decision could be lawfully taken against the appellants to their disadvantage, without giving them an opportunity of being heard. This new policy sought to be enforced by the R. T. A., Multan, through the decision of 13th of May 1962, would involve the operators into investing more money. It would substantially reduce the facilities they had been enjoying for switching over one vehicle to another route. All these were new conditions being imposed on them to their disadvantage. This I hold could not be done during the pendency of the permit which did not contemplate Such conditions. The R. T. 'A., could no doubt with effect from the date of this revision of policy decide to enforce its new decision on all permits issued subsequent to this date. It could also impose these conditions at the time of the renewal of the existing permits. But I hold, this could not be done during the period the existing permits granted prior to the date of this revision of the policy were valid.
It has been argued on behalf of the R. T. A., that no appeal lies for the present cases are not covered by any of the provisions of section 64. I am unable to accept this argument and hold that the present cases do come under clause (b) of section 64 for the appellants have been aggrieved "by any variation of the condi tions" of the permit.'
The appeals are accordingly allowed.
K. M. A. Appeals allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer