P L D (Rev (PLP)

Appeal No. 97 of 1949‑50, decided on 23rd February, 1950, from the order of Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, dated 17th November, 1949. Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939)‑

Guiding principles for granting permanent permits Kh. Abdur Rahim, for Appellants. This order dispose of five appeals noted above against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rawal pindi, dated the 17th November, 1949, by which that authority refused to issue temporary permit to the appellants for public carriers on the expiry of the terms for which temporary permits had been issued. All of these appellants have been granted temporary permits for some considerable time and have been led undoubtedly to believe that they would in ‑due course be granted permanent permits for which in some cases the have actually applied. The Authority in its order has said that it will now consider new applications for such permanent permits to fill any vacancies which there may be in the quota which has been allotted to the Rawalpindi Division, which at the time of hearing the appeal I was informed was

23. I consider that the Authority has adopted the right procedure in deciding that they will give these appellants and others who may be similarly situated an opportunity of filing fresh applications for perma nent permits as it is quite clear to me that the cases, as they are at present, have become quite unmanageable. At the same time, I think that it is desirable for me to suggest two principles which should guide the Regional Transport Authority in dealing with these fresh application. They are :‑ (a) There were originally 250 public carriers permits in this region and the Authority has been allowed to increase that number by 25 per cent. Of the 250 permits 150 were held by Muslims and 100 by non‑Muslims. Refugees have be en granted 141 permits and hence they have more than filled the old non Muslim permits increase by 25 per cent. It seems to me, there fore, only reasonable that in regard to the remaining vacancies there should be no distinction draw between refugees and locals and that each case should be treated on its merits. (b) There is no doubt that quite a. considerable number of operators including the present appellants have been investing capital on the purchase of vehicles and operating them under the impression that they would be allowed to operate them perma nently. It is in my opinion these people who certainly have first claim to any existing vacancies in the quota and any vacancies which may hereafter fall in. If this view is accepted, then no fresh applicant for a permit should receive one until all those who have been since partition op3rating on temporary permits in the Rawalpindi Region have been satisfied by the grant of permanent permitted, It will be, of course, for the Regional Transport Authority to exclude from a among those who have been operating any persons who are now known to be in any way undesirable for the grant .of such permits. With these remarks I remand these five cases to the Regional Transport Authority who should call upon the five appellants to submit applications for permanent permits if they now desire them. A.H. Cases remanded (N. B.‑In the marginal note on page.8, Fateh Muhammad should be read as Fateh Ahmad).