P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

A I R 1957 Raj. 239 not fol. Muhammad Salim for Appellant. Secretary R. T. A. Lahore for Respondent No.

1. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondent No.

2. Muhammad Afzal Cheema for Respondent No.

3. The appellant applied for four permits on Lyallpur Chichawatni route via Summandri, which is 84 miles. R. T. A. Lahore at its meetings held on the 27th to 29th May 1957 refused the permit to the appellant but distributed 2 each to the two respondents. The appeal against respondent No. 2 has been withdrawn on the ground that their permits have been renewed and the appeal has become in fructuous. The appeal against respondent No. 3 i e. Ex‑Servicemen's Co‑operative Transport Society has however, been argued on both sides. The appellant is an existing operator on this route and is also in possession of a large number of permits on other routes. It also claims to have had a satisfactory record of transport service. The main objection taken by the appellant to the grant of two permits to respondent No. 3 is that R. T. A. has not complied with the provisions laid down in subsection (7) of section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires that when an Authority refuses an application for a permit of any kind, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for refusal, It is a fact that R. T. A. did not give any reasons for refusal of permits in any case when it disposed of about 150 permits on the three dates‑27th‑29th May 1957. R. T. A' proceedings simply announced that it had heard both the parties, the petitioners as well as the objectors, and made its distribution of the permits a bare list of which was set forth in the order. A case of the Rajasthan High Court of India (A I R 1957 Raj.239) has been cited to show that the order of refusal must give reasons in a "succinct form" because the Tribunal functions as a "judicial or quasi judicial" authority exercising "judicial functions". But the Supreme Court of Pakistan has in a case, arising out of the same proceedings of R. T. A, Lahore, made it clear that a Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act does not function either in a judicial or in a quasi‑judicial capacity ; and that its functions are essentially those of an administrative body. In this view of the matter I hold that non‑compliance with the provisions of subsection (7) of section 57 does not assume the same degree of seriousness as it would on the view taken in India. It is an commission which should be curable. The original files of the R. T. A. on which these numerous applications and objections were considered leading to its decisions announced on the 27th‑29th May 1957 are not avail able at hand and the present staff of the R. T. A. cannot throw any light on the question whether any reasons or comments were at all given on the applications. The learned Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3 has mainly concentrated on his reply that the probable reason why R. T. A. refused the permits to the appellant was that the Managing Director of the appellant Society already held a large number of permits on a number of routes directly or through various Transport Companies and the R. T. A. avoided adding to his monopoly. He has also cited some case law in support of his argument that the policy of the R. T. A. must be to discourage such monopolies. The omission to state reasons has not particularly prejudiced the appellant. The appeal has been argued at considerable length, but the merits of the respondent as a transport operator have not been seriously impugned; nor has anything adverse to the working of the respondent Society during the last three years come to the light; the respondent Society does not exist for the benefit of an individual but is functioning as a co‑operative body; no hint or suggestion has been made as to any monopolist tendencies or tactics on its part. On the other hand, it is admitted that the Managing Director of the appellant Company is directly or indirectly in possession of a number of permits on a number of routes; furthermore, the appellant Company already holds two permits on the route in question. In these circumstances, mere failure to comply with a rule of procedure so as not to state reason in explicit terms cannot, in my opinion, be taken to vitiate decision of the R. T. A. to grant the respondent Society a couple of permits which, in any case, are expiring within the next three or four days. A.K.M Appeal dismissed.