P L D 1962 W (PLP)

This is an appeal under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act against R. T. A., Rawalpindi's Order dated 1‑6‑1961 refusing counter‑signatures to the appellant Bus service.

2. The facts are that R. T. A., Lahore in their meeting held from 27th to 29th May 1957 granted one permit part 'B' from Sargodha to Sialkot, via Chiniot, Pindi Bhattian, Hafizabad Gujranwala, to the appellant company on the condition that it should be counter‑signed by the R. T. A., Rawalpindi. The latter R. T. A., however, refused to grant the counter signatures as it found that there was no scope for further permits on this route. The R. T. A., Rawalpindi also felt that since the larger portion of the route lay within its jurisdiction, it was the proper R. T. A. to have granted the initial permits and the other R. T. A. should have counter‑signed them.

3. The main point pressed before me is that an opportunity was not given to the appellant service to be heard, before R. T. A.'s. refusal. I asked the representative of the R. T. A. to verify whether this allegation is correct. The R. T. A. have now armed that the appellant and his counsel were present and were heard before its decision. The appellant has filed an affidavit to the effect that has was neither served with any notice of the R. T. A.'s. meeting on 23‑1‑1960 nor he nor Mr. Mahmood Ali Qasuri, counsel on his behalf, appeared before the R. T. A. I do not find that it is necessary to determine whether the R. T. A.'s. version is correct or the appellant service affidavit. The minutes which nowhere mention Mr. Mahmood All Qusuri as their counsel reveal that there were eleven bus services represented through very eminent counsel including Mr. Mahmud Ali Qasuri and Khawaja Abdur Rahim. The issues at stake were similar in all the cases namely, the refusal of the R. T. A. Rawalpindi to grant counter signatures to the nominees of the R. T. A., Lahore on the inter regional routes. The order of the R. T. A. is lucid and concludes with the remark that, although its own survey did not reveal the need for more services along these routes, yet since all the inter regional routes have been taken over by the Provincial Transport Authority and fresh permits for these routes will be issued by that Authority only, the Provincial Transport Authority can consider the matter afresh. This is a very reasonable proposition and shows entire lack of (sic) against the appellant. I have given the appellant ample opportunity to advance any point to convince me that the decision of R. T. A. is wrong. The only points urged are: ‑ (i) That the R. T. A., Lahore selected the appellant service that it would be advantageous to the public to have a direct service along the route allotted to it by the R. T. A., Lahore from Sargodha to Sialkot to be run ; and (ii) that he had purchased a new vehicle, which he was operating on the basis of the injunction order granted by the Civil Courts since 19‑I1‑1960. I do not think this would constitute any ground for accepting the appeal on merits. The R. T. A, Lahore exceeding its authority if it uniliterally decided as to the scope for additional through services on particular routes, the major portion of which lay within the jurisdiction of R. T. A., Rawalpindi. The correct procedure in such cases is for the R. T. A. concerned to determine the number of permits required for the public interest and to divide the permits to be issued by each R. T. A. proportionately to the mileage lying within its jurisdiction. As this was not done and the respondent R. T. A. within whose jurisdiction the major portion of the route falls has found that there is no scope for further services, its refusal to grant counter‑signatures must, there fore, be upheld. There is no force in any of the grounds of appeal, which is hereby rejected. S. B. Appeal rejected.