P L D 1962 W (PLP)

Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 60‑Route‑permits issued to transport company for separate route‑Such permits cannot be taken as one permit‑Only that permit may be suspended whose condition has been infringed. Saleem Chaudhri for Appellant. Secretary R. T. A. for Lahore R. T. A. The appellant Company held four permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, two each on Jaranwala‑Jhang via Lyallpur route and Jaranwala‑Montgomery route via Syedwala. On 28‑8‑60 one of their vehicles plying on Jaranwala‑Montgomery route suffered a mishap resulting m some casualties. The Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, in their meeting held on 5/6th of May 1961, decided to suspend the two route permits of the appellant company held by them on the other route, i.e., Jaranwala‑Jhang route for a period of six months. The Company has come up in appeal. The only point that has been taken up before me is that the provisions of section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly indicate that the cancellation or suspension of a permit can only be with respect to that permit an infringement or breach of whose conditions has occurred. Thus the Regional Transport Authority could have taken action in respect of the permits held by the appellant Company on Jaranwala‑Montgomery route, and not Jaranwala- Jhang route as they proceeded to do. The argument advanced on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority is that a permit can be for any number of routes on which a transport company is allowed to operate and the Regional Transport Authority could, therefore, justifiably take action under section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of permits held by the appellant Company for all or any of the routes that they were permitted to ply on. This contention is not in keeping with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which directs the publication of applications for a permit, inviting objection thereon etc. and then coming to a decision finally. It would thus be in keeping with the general scheme of the Act if permits issued to transporters are for separate routes and not that all routes are included in one permit. I believe this Interpretation to be correct for the above reason and section 60 of the Act clearly is to the effect that only that permit may be suspended whose condition or conditions have been infringed. I would, in the circumstances, accept the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. It may, however, be stated that the Authority would be justified in taking such action in respect of the permits held by the appellant Company on the Jaranwala‑Montgomery route via Syedwala as they consider necessary or desirable. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.