P L D (Rev (PLP)

It is impossible to hold that the Regional Transport Authority, in considering these applications for permits, was dealing with a particular temporary need. They were issuing permits for regular services and, as such, these permits should have been permanent ones. 1947 L L T 1 dissented from. Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Shafi for Appellants. Abdul Hamid Malik, Government Pleader, for Respondents. This order disposes of the five connected appeals noted above against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, Multan, dated the 20th June, 1949, in the case of the first three, and the 30th July, 1949 in the case of the last two. The order is to the effect that "in view of the proposed nationalization of passenger transport permits have for some time past been being issued on temporary basis, Government have decided on nationalization of all passenger transport services and this shall be carried out in progressive stages over a course of‑some years. In view thereof and in the interest of the public it is not possible to grant stage carriage permits on permanent basis". Temporary permits were accordingly granted under section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act in order to meet a particular temporary need until such perma nent arrangements could be made. The Lower Bari Co‑operative Society, Montgomery, the Wahid Bus Mailsi Transport Company, Multan, and the Multan Transport Company Ltd., Multan are all old established transport companies which have been operating regular services on the Montgomery‑Lahore, Mailsi‑Multan, and Multan‑Khanewal routes in addition to other routes for many years. These three companies had permits for this purpose granted under section 58, but they became inopera tive on the 1st of September, 1946, as a result of orders passed by, the Provincial Transport Authority on the 31st January, 1946, under Ordinance XXXI of 1945. This Ordinance expired on the 23rd February, 1946, when the law as laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, again came into operation. The Okara Bus Service and the Chunian United Trans port Company, unlike the other three appellants, are not old established transport services and came into operation after partition, The first three companies have been granted temporary permits under section 62 since their permanent permits became ineffective from the 1st September, 1946, whereas the other par two companies, who have never had permanent permits, have ,;ca been granted temporary permits under the same section since .v the dates on which they started operation. Whether the first three companies applied for permanent permits and only received temporary permits with effect from the 1st September, 1946, up to the 29th November, 1948, when they admittedly applied for permanent permits which were refused, is not clear from the file and the same is the case with last two mentioned companies also up to the 28th May 1949, and the 10th of June, 1949 when they applied for permanent permits and were only granted temporary ones. It is now for consideration in the light of this past history of these services whether the Regional Transport Authority complied with the, requirements of the law when it rejected the applications for permanent permits and issued these com panies temporary permits only for four months. The only section, in the Act which deals specifically with temporary permits is section 62 whereas the other sections in Chapter IV of the Act deal mainly with permanent permits which may be granted for any period from three to five years. When an application is made for a permanent permit the Regional Transport Authority may grant or refuse it having regard to the considerations mentioned in section

47. The fact that the Regional Transport Authority has been issuing temporary per mits along these routes for many years, shows conclusive y that services along these routes are required and should be allowed it the interest of the general public in other words, they are not required to meet a particular temporary need which is the condition laid down in section 62 of the Act for the issue of a temporary permit. The Regional Transport Authority has, however, issued temporary permits on the ground that all these services are to be nationalized. The obvious reply to this argument is that this reason has been used for several years past in passing such orders and even now the services have neither been nationalised nor has any find decision been reach ed by Government in regard to such nationalization. Also any nationalization bill private transport services will be acquired by Government and hence it will not be more difficult for Government to take over a service with a permanent permit than it would be to over one with a temporary permit. I can see, therefore, no justification for leaving the companies concerned in a state of suspense regarding their permits and there are clearly consider able disadvantages in doing so as no operator is going to invest money in the purchase of new vehicles, etc., in such circumstances. The Act clearly visualises the issue of permanent permits in the case of regular services and it is only for tem porary needs such as excess traffic at times of fairs that it con templates the issue temporary permits. My attention has been drawn to an order of my learned predecessor, Mr. Marsden, dated the 12th December, 1946, (reported as 1947 Lahore Law Times 1) 'in which he held that the Regional Transport Authority in issuing temporary per is in anticipation of nationalisation was not acting ultra vires of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was, however, only about that the that nationalization on a wide scale had just been considered and there was,, every expectation that it would be implemented within a few months. Although I feel considerable doubt whether even at that time I would have agreed with my learned predecessor, there is now the additional argument that time has shown that the need then was not for temporary permits but for permanent permits and there is no more reason to believe that the future will not be the same as the past. For all these reasons, therefore, I consider that it is impossible to hold that the Regional Trans port Authority, in considering these applications for permits, was dealing with a particular temporary need. They were issuing permits for regular services and, as such, these permits should (in my opinion) have been permanent ones, unless Government were prepared to declare that within a reasonable time (which might well be four months, the duration of a tem porary permit) they proposed to nationalise the particular route in accordance with their general policy of nationalisation. I, therefore, accept the appeals in all five cases and remand the cases to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh decisions in the light of these remarks. In arriving at these decisions the procedure laid down for the issue of permanent permits must, of course, be carefully observe. K.M.A. Cases remanded