P L D (Rev (PLP)

AKHTAR HUSSAIN, F. C. R.

This order will dispose of two appeals R. O. A. M. Nos. 10 and

11. The facts of the case are that the appellant company (ROAM No. 10) Messrs. Talagang Bus Service have been running on daily service on the Talagang Mianwali route for a number of years. They applied for the grant of two additional route permits on this route and as part of this route lay within the jurisdiction of the R. T. A. Lahore, the R. T. A. Rawalpindi in their Secretary's memorandum No. 774/PT-53 dated 18th March 1953 enquired from R. T. A. Lahore if there was any objection to the application being considered favourably. This reference was placed before the R. T. A. Lahore as item No. 30 in their meeting held on 27th April 1953. The respondent company which is operating another route which includes a part of this route were given an opportunity to appear before the authority on the date and state if they had any objection. This item was however, not taken up on that date and was postponed. On 4th May 1953, the respondent company made an application objecting to the grant of additional permits to the appellant company on the ground that it would seriously prejudice their interests on a part of this route on which they were also operating. In case, however, any additional permits were to be granted to the appellant company, the respondent company should also be granted the corresponding number of permits as a reciprocal arrangement. The respondent company also made an appli cation for two route permits on 4th May 1953, which was published on 14th May 1953. On 7th May 1953, the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, enquired from the R. T. A. Rawalpindi if they were prepared to allow Mianwali Transport Company Ltd., to operate on Mianwali Talagang route on reciprocal basis. In R. T. A. Lahore's meeting dated 31st October 195.3, it was decided in the absence of the counsel for the appellant company that there was no objection to the two additional permits being granted to the appellant company provided that the respondents company were also given two permits on reciprocal basis on the same route. It was stressed that under no other circumstances the request of the appellant company could be granted. The R. T. A. Rawalpindi authorised its chairman to send a reply to this resolution and he decided that the grant of one stage carriage permit for each side should be recommended. The R. T. A. Lahore in a meeting held on 9th January 1954, decided that only one will be issued to the respondent company on a reciprocal basis as agreed to by R. T. A. Rawalpindi. There are two appeals against this cider. Talagang Bus Service appellants in this case-object to the grant of a permit to the Mianwali Transport Company and the Mianwali Transport Company appellant in R. O. A. M.. No. 11, have the grievance that they applied for two route permits but have only been given one. The facts stated above clearly show that the attitude of R. T . A. Lahore has been more of partnership than consider ation of the claims of the two companies on merit. It is admitted on all sides that Talagang Mianwali route needs more transport services in view of the public demand: The Rawalpindi Regional Transport Authority naturally could not consider any other way of meeting the public demand than by granting additional permits to a company which is- already operating on the route. The insistence of the R. T. A. Lahore on reciprocity is not understood. The Mianwali Transport Company is already operating on certain routes parts of which are however with Talagang Mianwali route, but it doe. not mean that every time an additional permit is given to the Mianwali Transport Company-other companies which are operating on parts of these routes acquire a claim to get a route permit on Mianwali Transport Company's routes. The Talagang Bus Service is as much a company controlled by R. T. A. Lahore as the Mianwali Transport Company. Any objection on the part of R. T. A. Lahore, that additional route permits are not necessary or that the Talagang Bus Service are not competent to run their additional services would have been valid but this arrangement of reciprocity without consideration of the case on merits and the respective claims of the two companies is so absurd that i cannot b2 allowed to stand even though both Rawalpindi an Lahore Regional Transport Authorities have concurred in it. The Talagang Bus Service are operating only one daily service a there is no allegation that they have not the capacity and the resources to operate two additional services. They certainly have a prior claim as against the Mianwali Transport Company. They are already operating on the route and having experienced difficulty in copying with the rush of traffic they applied for additional permits. I do not see how the Mianwali Transport Company can lay any claim to new permits on this route. I, therefore, direct that the resolution of R. T. A. Lahore on item No. 26 of the meeting held on 9th January 1954, should be considered as cancelled and inoperative and hold that the Mianwali Transport Company have no claim to be issued permits for Mianwali Talagang route and as the necessity for two additional route permits has been recognised by both Rawalpindi and Lahore Regional Authorities they should be granted to the Talagang Bus Service by tie R. T. A. Rawalpindi in the normal way. The appeal of Talagang Bus Service R. O. A. M. No. 10 is accepted and that of Mianwali Transport Company R. O. A M. No. 111 is rejected. Announced. A. H. Order accordingly