P L D 1961 W (PLP)

This is an appeal by an existing operator against R..T. A's. order dated the 26th October 1960 granting one 'B' part permit, each to the two respondents. The case is in a way a sequel to four connected appeals decided by my learned colleague Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, on 25th July 1960. The present respondents were appellants in two of these earlier appeals. The learned Member rejected their appeals by the following obser vation :‑ "As a result I would reject all these appeals but would direct that the R. T. A. Multan if as a result of their investigation find that there is scope for the issue of more permits on this route will give due consideration to the claim of Muzaffar Transport and Zamindara Shaheen Bus Service." Regional Transport Authority took Member's above obser vation as directive and did not follow the procedure prescribed in section 57 meticulously. It just included its verbatum translation in its agenda for its meeting to be held on 17‑9‑1960 and published it in the "Driver" dated 15‑9‑1960, which was obviously done for the information of all these persons, including existing operators, who were interested in the grant of additional permits on ‑this route. On that date, however, R. T. A. had a long agenda to go through and the item was postponed for consideration at a subsequent meeting. Eventually it came up for consideration at its meeting held on the 26th October 1960 through a supplementary agenda, when it passed the following order :‑ "The Survey Report of the Secretary Member was read out in the meeting and approved by the Authority. It was decided that in view of traffic on the route in question one 'B' part each should further be issued to Messrs Zamindara Shaheen Bus Service, Ahmadpur East and Messrs Muzaffar Transport Company, Bahawalpur." The above order is assailed by the appellant on the ground that the procedure laid down under section 57 requiring the publication of he application for grant of permits, the receiving of objections by interested parties, etc., was not strictly followed, that the provisions of section 57 are mandatory and that non‑compliance with them vitiates the order of the R. T. A. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides at great length and while agree that the procedure prescribed under section 57 was not strictly followed, I find that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant and that R. T. A's. order is not vitiated by a bona fide error on its part. M.B.R's. above‑quoted observation was not tantamount to a directive; all he did was to refer the two respondents back to R. T. A. with the remark that if there was need for more permits their cases should receive due consideration; and it would have been much the better course for R. T. A. to advertise the additional permits required to cope with the increased traffic on this route. Regional Transport Authority started with the initial mistake of adopting M.B.R's. incidental observation as a directive and its subsequent action as a continuation of the previous proceedings. However, the matter was duly published in the "Driver" and the appellant, who had been an active party to the appeals before. M.B.R.(R.) should have known from the publication that R. T. A. intended reopening the case of additional permits on this route. It has been candidly admitted in the arguments before me that the appellant company being a very big operator, plying some 50 services on this route, is not interested in adding one or two more to its large quota and that its objection is based primarily on a point of principle, i.e., non‑compliance with the procedure prescribed under section

57. It is true that the provisions of section 57 are mandatory and that they were not followed in this case strictly; but it is also true that the essential requirement of section 57 publication of the notice was fulfilled and that nobody has been prejudiced by non‑compliance with some of its provisions. Actually there seems to be no aggrieved party in the case, not even the appellant on his own showing; and I cannot accept that R. T. As'. order is vitiated just because the respondent's appli cations was not republished under section

57. Some importance also seems to be attached to the non‑publication of the supple mentary agenda, but section 57 does not require R. T. A's. agenda to be published. In the result, I find that the irregularity of procedure shown by R. T. A. was bona fide and that its order is not vitiated by it. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed Appeal dismissed.