P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Route permit‑Order of R. T. A. if not extremely wrong and arbitrary, not to be upset in appeal. As both the appeals R. O. A. M. Nos. 10 & 18 of 1962‑63 arise out of the same order and very nearly the same points of fact and law are involved, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this one order. These appeals are against the order of R. T. A., Quetta, dated 27‑8‑62, granting two `B' part permits to Kalat‑Mastung Co‑operative Transport Society on Mastung‑Dadar route. The route was duly advertised and the necessary formalities prescribed under section 37 of the Motor Vehicles Act complied with. When the matter came up for hearing before the R. T. A., there were 5 applicants for this route. The R. T. A. decided to grant the permits to the respondent, after hearing all the appli cants. Two of those applicants namely, Mastung Transport Co. and Bolan Transport Co. have appealed against that order. Both the appellants are already holding permits which cover parts of this route. On behalf of Bolan Transport Company, it is urged that they cover nearly 80 miles of the route. On behalf of Mastung Transport Company too, it is urged that they also cover a part of this route. Both, therefore, claim that their rights have been seriously affected and they should have been given preferential treatment, since they are already plying on this route. The R. T. A. was influenced in its decision by the fact that the respondent was in possession of two spare vehicles which were available for being put on the road. As a matter of fact within the prescribed period, the respondent did place on the road, two vehicles of the latest model. The only point for consideration in this case is ; which of the three was in a better position to serve the area. I quite agree with the agreement adduced on behalf of the respondent that a certain amount of healthy competition on this route, would be to the advantage of everyone concerned. And considering the length of the route which is not less than 102 miles, the decision to award both the permits to one applicant was in conformity with the instructions issued by the R. T. A. The R. T. A. consisting as it does, of a number of very senior) officials posted in the locality, as also representatives of the) public, is most competent to judge which of the applicants is likely to serve the interest of the travelling public of the locality best. Unless it is specifically shown that the decision of the R. T. A. is extremely wrong or arbitrary, its finding of fact with regard to various applicants who possess more or less equal quali fications, must be respected. I find nothing wrong with the finding of the R. T. A. which, I think, must in the circumstances be upheld. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. K. M. A. Appeals dismissed.