P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

(a) Route permit‑Grant‑Previous decision can be upset only if it was found erroneous. (b) Route permit‑Route involving unnecessary journey cannot be said to be in interest of public‑Permit for such route should not be granted. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. Fazal Ghani Khan for Respondent No.

2. Secretary, R. T. A., Lahore for Respondent No.

1. Respondent No. 2, held a stage carriage permit for Qaidabad Harnoli‑Kalurkot. He applied for an extension of this route from Kalurkot to Bhakkar. The distance from Qaidabad to Kalurkot is about 45 miles, while that from Kalurkot to Bhakkar is about 46 miles. This could hardly be called a case of extension which should normally cover only a few miles of a long route. The matter was placed before the R. T. A. at its meeting held on 13‑6‑59, and the decision was that "a survey should be carried out under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the statistics should be placed before the Regional Transport Autho rity to consider if there is justification for additional transport on the proposed route. This request cannot be considered simply as an extension. The matter was again placed before the R. T. A. at its meeting on 4‑9‑59, and the decision was that "survey under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act to be carried out." Without any survey having been carried out, the matter was again placed before the R. T. A. at its meeting held on 14‑5‑1960, and the Authority decided to grant the extension without assigning any reason. There is nothing to show that the R. T. A. took notice of the previous decision. In a case like this when the authority had come to a decision already, very strong reasons were needed before it could be accepted that the previous decisions were erroneous. A perusal of the map shows that the last portion of the Qaidabad‑Kalurkot route is from Ghulama to Kalurkot, a distance of about 14 miles. The extension of the permit would mean that in going from Kalurkot to Bhakkar the stage carriage will have to return to Ghulama and then proceed to Bhakkar. This means an additional and unnecessary journey of 28 miles. Thus, instead of serving the interest of the public generally as required by section 47 (1) (a), the result will be just the reverse of it. The proper course in the present case was to advertise the new route from Kalurkot to Bhakkar and invite fresh applications, if the existing transport services were inadequate. Every one could then have a fair chance of applying for the route. It would thus appear that the order of the R. T. A. granting the extension of the route to respondent No. 2, is not justified. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order of the R. T. A. is set aside. K. M. A. Appeal allowed.