P L D 1960 W (PLP)

Route permit‑Grant of new or additional service‑Public convenience should be sole criterion. Ch. Muhammad Siddiq for Appellant. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondents. This is an appeal against an order of R. T. A. Quetta dated 19‑9‑1959 by which the R. T. A. granted an additional service on Pishin‑Barashore route to Abdul‑Wahab‑Abdul Malik and Muhammad Lal, rejecting the application of the appellant company. The appellant‑company is an existing operator on this route but it plies only one service. The public asked for an additional service to be sanctioned and an enquiry was made. The Enquiry Officer reported that there was need for an additional service and also recommended that it be granted to the appellant company. This recommendation was perhaps no part of the Enquiry Officer's business, and the R. T. A. rightly advertised the additional' service. The appellant company did not apply for it and raised an objection to the effect that no outsider should be imported to operate it either. The service was re advertised and when the appellant‑company found that other operators were interested in it; they at last also applied for it. R. T. A. examined the claims and counter‑claim of the parties and recorded an elaborate order dated 19‑9‑1959 rejecting the application of the appellant company and granting the new service to the three respondents mentioned above. In its order R. T. A. has remarked that the appellant company is not capable of improving even the present service plied by them. The report submitted by R. T. A. shows three offences against the appellant‑Company between 1953 to

57. While their recent 'record seems to be unblemished, it does not prove that they are capable of improving their existing service. The R. T. A's order further records that one of the partner of the company, who owns 1/5th of the shares, has sold out his share. However, the main consideration which prevailed with the R. T. A. was that it should not allow a monopoly of the route to one company and its action to that extent was fully justified. The sole criterion for grant of an additional or new A service should be the public convenience an existing operator ipso facto has no over‑riding claims. Incidentally it also appears from the comments submitted by R. T. A. that the appellant company have been allowed to ply another service on this very route from the 13th November, 1959. In such circumstances, to give them a third‑service would certainly amount to creating a monopoly of the route in their favour. I think, therefore, the order of R. T. A. was fully justified. A so called law point has been raised to the effect that the R. T. A. has also ordered the three respondents to unite into a transport society which vitiates its order. I do not accept this argument. In effect, the appeal is dismissed. K.M. A. Appeal dismissed.