P L D 1959 W (PLP)

Secretary, R. T. A. Lahore. Date of hearing: 19‑6‑1957. This is an appeal against order dated 17/18‑4‑57 of the R. T. A. Lahore, whereby the latter decided to grant ten B Part Permits on the Lyallpur‑Jhang route as under:‑

1. Moghal & Mehr Bus Service, Lyallpur .....2 B Part Permits

2. Iqbal Transport Service, Lyallpur. .2 B Part Permits

3. Layallpur Fauji Co‑operative Transport Society, Layallpur . .2 B Part Permits

4. Evergreen Transport Co‑opera tive Company Layallpur .4 B Part Permits

2. The case of the Appellant briefly is that they were operat ing on this route with seven permits since long. After the expiry of these permits on 31‑3‑55, they applied for renewal in the normal course. Since then, though the R. T. A. met several times, yet their application for renewal was not disposed of. In stead, they were only granted temporary permits from time to time. Even at the meeting on the 17/18 April 1957, although the renewal matter of their permit was included in Item No. 2 ‑and the grant of fresh permits was item No. 11 on the agenda of that meeting the latter was taken up and disposed of by the Authority, whereas the former was postponed. On 19‑3‑55, R. T. A. Lahore had granted ten new permits on this very route but, in appeal, the then learned F. C. holding that it was not proved that ten additional permits were, in fact, required had reduced the number from ten to five. There was no material on the record to justify the grant of ten more permits so soon thereafter, specially when the Autho rity had made no survey in this behalf. There were already 25 permits operating on this route and the. Road Transport Board and the Railway Authorities, in addition to the Appellant, had objected to the grant of more permits on it. The Authority had also not given any sound and valid reasons for this increase. In the circumstances, the Appellant urge that the order passed is discriminatory and does not really amount to an order in com pliance with the provision of section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. On behalf of the respondents, it has been urged that the main criterion under the Act was convenience of the public which the Authority had evidently taken into consideration. The Appellants themselves had applied for permits on many new routes which involved the Lyallpur‑Jhang route which showed that the Appellants themselves felt there was need for more permits on this route. Finally it was stated that the seven permits of the appellant had since been made permanent at a subsequent meeting of the R. T. A. Lahore held on 28th May 1957.

4. I do not think it is necessary for me, at this stage to go into the details of the case. Suffice it so say that, in dealing with applications for the grant of fresh permits, the power vesting in a R. T. A. has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. Further, their orders being appealable, it is necessary for them to indicate the reasons underlying their orders, to enable A the Appellate Authority to appreciate whether the power was, in fact, exercised judiciously. Section 57 (7), of the Act also requires the R. T. A. when it refuses an application for a permit, to give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal. I have gone through the order of the R. T A. very carefully and find that it deals with generalities only. There is no evidence anywhere to show that they tried to evolve a basis with reference to which they could consider the applications before them for the grant of fresh permits or the objections thereto or that any other defined basis was, in fact, applied while disposing of them.

5. I feel, the only satisfactory basis for dealing with a case like this vis‑a‑vis the provision of section 47 of the Act was with reference to a traffic survey undertaken on a scientific basis. Only with reference to such a survey could it reasonably be seen what the genuine needs of the public were, to what extent existing operators on the route were catering to them and to what extent additional Services were required. I gather from the Secretary, R. T. A., that no such survey was undertaken in this case. The need for collecting reliable statistical data before proceeding to deal with the grant of fresh permits on a route has also been emphasized by my learned Predecessors, Mr. Nasir Ahmad, in P L D (Rev.) 1956 W. P. 50 and by Hafiz Abdul Majid, in P L D (Rev.) 1956 W. P. 67,

6. I, therefore, accept the appeal and direct that the R. T. A. Lahore, should reconsider the matter after collecting reliable statistical information and after laying down a proper basis with reference to which all the applications before them could be uniformly considered K. M. A. Appeal accepted.