P L D 1961 W (PLP)

(a) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 64 (f)‑Party filing representation against application of other party for permit‑‑But not pursuing representation vigorously at R. T. A's. meeting Party still entitled to file appeal against R.T.A's. decision. (b) Route permit‑Extension varying terms of existing permit May embrace only a short distance diversion. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad 1qbal for Respondent. Secretary, R. T. A., Lahore. In this appeal a preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2 to the effect that the appeal was not competent under clause (f) of section 64 because the appellant company had not "opposed" the respondent's appli cation for extention of its permits (Lahore‑Sargodha) up to Sargodha‑Jauharabad. It has, however, been shown on behalf of the appellant company that it filed a representation against the application when it was published under clause (3) of section 57, although the Managing Proprietor did not probably pursue it vigorously at R.T.A.'s meeting. If he was not heard under clause (5) of section 57, it is his loss and not a matter of prejudice to the respondent company. The appellant company while submitting its representation to R. T. A. under clause (3) of section 57 also endorsed a copy of it to respondent No.

2. This action, therefore, was sufficient to bring its appeal within the meaning of clause (f) of section 64 and the preliminary objection is overruled. The main ground on which R. T. A's. order dated 14‑5‑60, granting an extension of 34 miles from Sargodha to Jauharabad for respondent's two permits from Lahore‑Sargodha, has been assailed, is that this is not really an "extension" but two new permits in the garb of an extention. It is further pointed out that there was really no need for this extention as there are a large number of transport companies operating a large number of permits on various sections of this long route of 154 miles as also on its various parts. The terminal portion, namely Sargodha to Jauharabad, is by itself an independent route for which several permits are operated by four transport companies. It is, there fore, a legitimate grievance of the appellant company that if the R. T. A. wanted to provide additional services on this independent route, Sargodha to Jauharabad, they should have been published as such and both it and the other competitors could have had an equal opportunity to compete for them. Again if the R. T. A's. Intention was to add two more "through" services on the entire route from Lahore to Jauharabad, they could just as well have been advertised for the information of all the parties interested in them. On the other hand when R. T. A. decided to grant these two permits as an "extension", these interested parties could only present an objection but could not apply for them. That is how, it is argued, the case of the other operators vis‑a‑vis these permits has been prejudiced. There is no doubt that the R. T. A's. action in granting these two permits as an "extension" cannot be justified. It is true that by adopting this procedure the other competitors interested in this route have been prejudiced and balked of a chance to apply and compete for them. Finally I am also emphatically of the view, which has been reiterated by several Members of the Board of Revenue from time to time, that the so‑called "extension" varying the terms of an existing permit can only be a short‑distance diversion or detour for provision of better facilities to the public and it cannot be taken to cover permits for an appreciable distance like 34 miles on a route which is already being operated as an independent route by four transport companies. If the R. T. A's Discretion of varying the terms of an existing permit for granting extensions is not reasonably restricted, it would lead to arbitrary and unjust decisions giving rise to a legitimate grievance on the part of the other rival companies in the field. Coming to the second appeal namely the United Transport, Sargodha v. The Crown Bus Service, Lahore, it has been frankly admitted by the learned counsel that the appellant company is interested in the two permits only in the sense that their grant to the respondent has disturbed their party which was accepted and enforced as a result of some previous agreement between the parties. It is not necessary for me to, enter into the details of the so‑called "party" arrangement between the parties, especially when I have accepted the appeal in the first case and the two permits granted in favour of the respondent company are being cancelled. In effect, the appeals are accepted and the order of the R. T. A. Lahore, dated 14‑5‑1960, is set aside. K. M. A. Appeal accepted Appeals accepted.