P L D (Rev (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD, F. C.‑These appeals relate to applica tions made by the Muslim Bus Service and the Thal Transport Company for stage carriage permits to ply between Sargodha and Kalurkot and Khushab and Kalurkot respec tively. The Regional Transport Authority rejected their applications for the complete route but granted them permits on sections of it. Two B‑part stage carriage permits were thus granted to the Thal Transport Company between Kalurkot and Rangpur and two to the Muslim Bus Service between Sargodha and Nurpur. Both these companies have now come up in appeal. In my considered opinion all the three appeals should be rejected for the reasons which follow. Admittedly, the activities of the Muslim Bus Service are generally confined to the Shahpur district Thal though they have been granted one or two permits outside this area. The Thal Transport Company is comparatively a newer concern. Only recently they have been sanctioned a stage carriage permit to ply on the Kacha road between Mianwali and Bhakkar and for the first time on a metalled road, namely the Kalurkot Rangpur section which is now under consideration. The main argument that has been advanced on behalf of the Muslim Bus Service is that they are in a position to meet the requirements of traffic, and as they already are plying on a section of the route, they should have been preferred over the Thal Transport Company. Reliance in this connection is placed on observations made in two previous rulings, Okara Bus Service Ltd. v. L. B. Transport Co‑operative Society (P L D (Rev.) 1954 Pb. 13) and Talagang Bus Service Ltd. v. The Mianwali Transport Company Ltd., (P L D (Rev.) 1954 Pb. 26), respectively. With due deference to the views express ed therein, I may say that if this principle of preferring existing concerns over all others is followed strictly in transport services, it would mean the creation of monopolies a and bar the door to all new‑comers, a situation which is no contemplated by the Act or the Rules. The Act and Rule are in favour of existing services only to the extent that any action which is to their detriment or disadvantage should be avoided. The grant of new permits where there is a public demand on account of the exigencies of traffic or increase in passengers is thus not to be confined to existing companies working on that route. As a matter of fact, a logical result of an acceptance of this argument would be the creation of big monopolists to the detriment of the travelling public. In my opinion, the Regional Transport Authority have acted judiciously in holding the balance between the two companies and have made a genuine effort to confine them to their respective zones. I, therefore, decline to interfere and reject all the three appeals. A. H. Appeals rejected.