P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD.‑For an appreciation of the facts of this appeal it would be advisable to go into the history of the applications made by the appellants i.e. Rajput Bus and Transport Company Limited, Sargodha and one of the res pondents, namely the Muslim Bus Service for grant of permits to ply between Kalurkot via Gunjial and Rangpur. The appellant company applied on 6th August 1955 for this route and the Muslim Bus Service on 25th July 1955. The application of the Muslim Bus Service was published two days after it was made and came up for consideration on 20th August 1955 when a favourable recommendation was made to the R. T. A. The application of the appellant was published on 20th August 1955 i.e., on the day when the application made by the Muslim Bus Service came up for consideration by the R. T. A. A request was made at that time to the R. T. A. to consider both the applications together but for some un-explicable reason the R. T. A. did not accept this very just and pertinent request. Finally a year later i.e. in May 1952 the R. T. A. granted, what originally was an extension of an existing permit but finally became a new permit to the Muslim Bus Service and a few days later allowed what is called a variation of one of their existing permits Sargodha‑Jamali to Sargodha‑Kalurkot. It is significant that the application of the appellants was not considered even at the time and it was finally in their meeting held on 27th February and 1st and 5th March 1954 that the appellants case came up for consideration but was rejected on the ground that the route in question was sufficiently provided for by existing transport services. Rajput Bus Service has now come up in appeal. There are two points which though not directly under consideration yet deserve a few observations. Though the law does not specifically lay down that applications by different parties for a particular route should be considered together, it would be but just and equitable that R. T. A. a. adopted this salutary principle. The second point is what might be called a 'variation'. In this particular case the route Sargodha to Jamali was permitted to be varied to Sargodha to Kalurkot. Obviously these are two different and separate routes and the latter cannot be called a variation of the former by any stretch of imagination. In the case of a variation the fundamental idea would be that the basic route remains unchanged and some slight alteration which does not divert it altogether to any other route is made still keeping in tact basically the original route. Coming to the merits of this case I understand from the Secretary R. T. A. that owing to the considerable development which is proceeding on in the Thal, there is sufficient justifi cation for grant of fresh permits on this route. I would accordingly accept this appeal and direct the issue of two new permits in favour of the Rajput Bus Service. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.