P L D (Rev (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD.‑The Regional Transport Authority, Multan, in their meeting held on 9th December 1955, granted four permits to the Dost Corporation, Multan, to ply between Multan and Jhang via Abdul Hakim. The Multan Transport Company Ltd., who are already operating on this route have appealed. Two main grounds have been taken up on behalf of the appellants company ; firstly that an opportunity was not given to them to press their objection at a public hearing as laid down in section 57 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act ; and secondly that the original application of the respondent was for a different route ; namely, Multan to Jhang via Chichawatni and the permit has been granted for another route, namely, Multan to Jhang via Abdul Hakim. This change was not permissible under the law. Now the respon dent company had made several applications, one of which was for Multan‑Lyallpur via Abdul Hakim and Jhang and it was open to the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits for a portion of this route, namely, Multan to Jhang as has been done. The second objection, therefore, has no force. The first objection, however, seems to me to be valid. On going through the record I find that the meeting at which the various applications of the respondents were considered, was scheduled to be held on the 8th October, 1955. It was, however, given out in the issue of the "Driver" of the 5th October, that no application for route permits will be taken up at this meeting. For the neat meeting held on 13th October, 1955, a notice was published in the "Driver" of 12th October, 1955 but no specific notice or information of any kind was sent to the appellant company. In any case one day's notice for the meeting was definitely insufficient particularly when communications between Lahore and Multan and most of the country side round about were dis rupted at the time owing to the severe floods which had visited the Province. Nevertheless the Manager of the appellant company was present at the Commissioners House on the 13th October but this particular case was not called and no objections were entertained. The record of the proceedings, however, does show that a number of companies had objected but the wording does not clearly indicate whether the objectors were present or were heard. The exact words used are :‑ "The following are the objectors" and these words have also been repeated in the record of the meeting held on 9th December 1955. The Manager of the appellant company has filed an affidavit to the effect that they were not called for or heard either on the 8th October or on the 9th December. The relevant portion of the record dated 9th December runs as follows :‑ "The objectors were heard at the last meeting when the case was postponed to this meeting and the Secretary Member was asked to submit a report about the company and the route applied for". As already observed the record of the proceedings held on 13th October does not clearly show that the objectors were in fact heard, and as stated above the Manager of the appellant company has filed an affidavit to that effect. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in holding that the appellant and the other objectors were not given an opportunity of being heard as required by section 57 (5) of the Act. I would accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority sanctioning four permits in favour of the respondents. It is not necessary to go further into the merits of the case. A. H. Appeal accepted.