P L D (PLP)

S. 62‑Temporary permits‑ To be granted for temporary need. The facts are that on the recommendation of the Superinten dent of Police, Jacobabad, the R.T.A. Hyderabad, had considered the applications of the three respondent‑companies only at its meeting dated 2‑7‑1960, and granted three temporary permits ; one temporary permit to them for the Shikarpur‑Thul via Humayun route. The appellant company's grievance is that although it had duly submitted its application dated 28‑6‑1960, but that it was not included in the agenda for the meeting on 2‑7‑1960. As against this, the application of Qamaruddin respondent No. 4, was presented on the very date of the meeting (2‑7‑1960), even though he had not deposited the sum of Rs. 100 as fee, whereas the appellant had done so, and his application was sanctioned. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the R.T.A. beyond the fact that the agenda for the meeting on 2‑7‑1960, had been despatched to the members on 22‑6‑1960. In my opinion it was the duty of the Secretary to have placed the appellant's application before the Chairman for orders, especially when he saw that the application of respondent No. 4 received on that very date was being admitted. It is laxity of this nature, which tends to give the administrators a bad name. In my opinion, the appellant had a legitimate grievance against the Secretary, R.T.A. for his default in this respect. There is no doubt that if its application had been put up at that meeting it would have been preferred to Qamaruddins. The question of granting permanent permits was taken up at the R.T.A.'s meeting dated 10‑11‑1961. The temporary permits of the three respondents including Qamaruddin were made permanent. In regard to the appellant's case, the R.T.A. made the following observations "A representative of the company appeared before the Authority and was heard. The objections of the National Development Transport Co., and Pakistan Bus Service, were read out. Since the applicants were financially sound and had already vehicle the Authority decided to grant temporary permit to them with a view to provide immediate transport relief to the public." Thereafter the Authority in its meeting dated 26‑4‑1961, decided that the temporary permits granted to the appellant on 10‑1‑1961, should not be renewed or advertised for grant on a permanent basis in view of the Government's decision to nationalise the route. The Authority, however, did not interfere with the three routes granted to the respondents at the same meeting. In my opinion the appellant has a very genuine grievance against the R.T.A. It is settled law now that temporary permits are not to be granted except for temporary needs, as laid down under section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The terms in which the Authority granted temporary permits to the appellant on 10‑1‑1961, really justified the grant of a permanent permit. Even though the Authority had to advertise only three `B' part permits on the route, yet since after hearing the parties it came to the conclusion that the traffic requirements necessitated one extra `B' part, it should have accepted the appellant's application for the fourth route rather than to grant him a temporary route permit for the permanent need. The only restriction which the law imposes on the R.T.A., in this respect is that it should grant that number of permits, which it considers justified according to the traffic requirements. This being the position, I accept the appeal, set aside the order of the R.T.A. and direct that the appellant be issued a permanent 'B' part. K. M. A. Appeal accepted