P L D 1963 W (PLP)

Route permit

Applicant for new permit not invested with a right to have a permit-Notice to applicant at time of consideration of application not necessary. This order will dispose of the two connected Transport Appeals Nos. 326 and 327 of 1961-62, which have been filed against the same order of the Regional Transport Authority, Lahore passed in their meeting held on 10th/11th and 15th August 1962. The facts briefly are that the Regional Transport Authority, Lahore in their meeting held on the above-mentioned dates granted two permits each to the respondent companies for Jhang Ahmadpur-Sial route. The appellant companies were also applicants before the Authority but their applications were rejected. The application of Pak Jhang Transport Company was rejected because no representative of theirs appeared before the Authority on the date of hearing. The main point argued by Mr. Saeed Akhtar, counsel for this company is that in view of section 57 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Transport Authority was not competent to reject their application in default and were bound to decide it on merits. The section says that "the Regional Transport Authority shall dispose of the application at a public hearing at which the applicant and the person making the representation shall have an opportunity of being heard either in person or by duly authorised representative". It is argued that for providing an opportunity to an applicant of being heard by the Authority an individual notice in every case should be issued to the appli cants and this was not done in the case under consideration. The Secretary of the Authority states that whenever a meeting of the Authority is held to consider applications for grant of permits no individual notices are issued to the applicants and the practice is that particulars of all the applications together with the date, time and place of the meeting at which these are to be considered is published in certain newspapers particularly read by transport companies. This has always been considered sufficient compliance with the provision of the Act. I am inclined to agree with this view as the law does not definitely lay down that a notice should issue to an applicant. What is required is that the application should be considered in a public meeting of the Authority at which the applicants and the objectors should get an opportunity of being heard. This course was adopted by the Authority. It is also in evidence that a representative of this company did appear before the Authority at the same meeting in response to a notice which had been issued to the company for taking action under the proviso to section 60 (i) of the Act. It is urged that even in this proviso there is no specific direction that a notice should issue to the party concerned and the words used are identical namely "that no permits should be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to submit an explanation". There is, however, a clear difference between the two cases. Applicants for new permits do not have any right to a permit whereas in the latter case of cancellation or suspension of a permit under section 60 the party has an existing right i.e. is the holder of a permit and this right is proposed to be affected by the action of the Authority. No specific ruling has been shown to me by the learned counsel in support of his argument and I am of the opinion that the action taken by the Authority was sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act, particularly when a representative of the company was present at that meeting and did not choose to appear before the Authority to press the appli cation. On merits also the appellant has no case. They have seven vehicles and six permits so that they are amply provided for. As a result their appeal has no force and stands dismissed. The other appellant, Al-Gharib Transport Company, was not considered fit for the grant because they had already been sanc tioned two permits for Jhang-Chiniot route against three vehicles in their possession. It is urged by Mr. Gut Muhammad, Advo cate, their counsel that the company possessed six vehicles and not three as observed by the Authority in their order though three vehicles are admitted to be with them on commission basis. Further their Headquarters is at Ahmad Pur Sial and a terminus of the route in dispute being Ahmad Pur Sial, they want to be based on their Headquarters. There is no force in these argu ments. The company is admittedly short of vehicles, viz. three against two permits already granted to them, and grant of any further permit to them is not justified. Their appeal, therefore, also stands dismissed. K. M. A. Appeals dismissed.