P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

These are two appeals under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 4.37 against the orders of R. T. A. Lahore, by one of which R. T. A. granted an extension of 11 miles, from Kot Moman to Bhalwal to the respondent, Evergreen Transport Ltd: and by the other of which R. T. A. refused the same to the appellant Company. The appellant Company holds a number of permits on four different routes one of which is Sargodha to Sardarpur Noon via Lak and Bhalwal. It applied for what is called an extension of this route between Bhalwal and Kot Moman; but in actual effect, this extension means going up to Sardarpur Noun, coming back to Bhalwal and then going down the extension to Kot Moman. The respondent Company's route is from Lyallpur to Bhalwal via Sargodha, Mari and Lak; it also applied for extension of this route, from B alwal to Kot Moman. R. T. A. granted the extension of these t l miles to the respondent Company and denied it to the appellant. Hence the appellant Company has filed appeal No. 1 against the, rant of extension to respondent Evergreen Transport Ltd., and appeal No. 2 against R. T. A.'s refusal of grant of extension to it. So far as the first appeal is concerned a preliminary legal objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent Company, Evergreen Transport Ltd., which requires consideration. 7 he objection is that the appeal is not maintainable: the permits, the route of which was amended and extended, have expired and the appeal filed in respect of them cannot be converted into an appeal against the renewed permits which are in law on a par with new permits. What happened was that slightly before the expiration of these two permits the Evergreen Transport Company applied to. R. T. A. far their renewal and the renewal was granted by R. T. A. The appellant Company filed no objection against the renewal application of the respondent, Evergreen Transport Ltd., and now it contends that its appeal against the old (amended) permits is also tenable against the renewed permits. Under subsection (2) of section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act an application for revenwal is to be treated as if it were an application for grant of a permit i.e. the whole procedure laid down under section 57 of the Act has to be followed in its disposal. Section 57 provides for the publication of the applica tion the inviting of objections, their consideration etc.3. Any party who has not opposed the application tinder section 5 (sub section (3) is not entitle to institute an appeal under clause (f ) of section 64 against the grant of the permit. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that tie did not wish to invoke clause (f) of section

64. But there is no other clause under section 64 which provides a right of appeal against the grant of a permit in consequence of a renewal application. This question was considered in a case reported in A I R 1956 Pat. 437‑439, which clarifies that clause (f ) of section 64 related not merely to the grant of a permit but also to be renewal of a permit and a person who is aggrieved by the order of renewal has a right to prefer an appeal under clause (f ) of section 6.4. But in order to become entitled to file an appeal under clause (f ), the aggrieved party must have opposed th: renewal application under sub section ( 3) of section 57, which the appellant Company failed to do when the renewal application of the respondent Company was published and objections invited by R. T. A. The position them comes to this appeal No. 1 was filed in respect of the permits the route of which was amended and extended by the R. T. A , those permits have now lapsed with the expiry of their term and they cannot be revived, no appeal was filed or could be filed against the renewed permits because the appellant Company failed to comply, with the provisions of subsection (3) of section

57. Clearly, therefore, the appellant Company is out of Court, with its appeal No. 1 having abated with the expired permits. As regards appeal No. 2 it is necessary to go into the facts. From the order of R. T. A., it appears that the extension sought from Bhalwal to Kot Moman was denied to the appellant because it was not really an application for extension of its route but actually for a new route and was wholly uncommon and un natural. The appellant Company expects that there would be passengers for Kot Moman via Bhalwal who will agree to go to Sardarpur Noon, nearly, 14 miles come back the same distance unnecessarily to Bhalwal and then proceed to Kot Moman. Ordinarily nobody would like to travel 28 miles for nothing when he can reach the same destination by a alternative, straight route via Chowki‑Bhagat. I think R. T. A. was quite correct in not treating it as a natural or logical extension required in public interest. Apart from this fact R. T. A., found that the appellant Company's present service was not efficient. Secretary R. T. A. checked its service for six days, from the 15th to 20th May 1959, and found several irregularities including gross unpunctuality (e.g. vehicles scheduled to leave in the morning actually left in the evening), absence of service on some days, etc The appellant Company also has a service on Sargodha, Chowki Bhagat, Bhalwal and Chak Ramoas route. Secretary R. T. A. reports that it has not been plying this service at all and the permit has remained unused. At Kot Moman he made local enquiries from the police as well as the public about its service and heard complaints of over‑loading and unpunctuality. The ,only answer suggested by the appellant company to these complaints is that these are "inspired". To my mind this explanation is not satisfactory and I am inclined to accept the finding of the R. T. A. that its service is, by and large, inefficient. The R. T. A. was, therefore, amply justified in refusing the appellant Company extension between Bhalwal and Kot Moman and its appeal No: 2 is also dismissed. K. M. A. Appeals Dismissed.