P L D 1961 W (PLP)

Appeal No. 42 of 1960‑61, decided on 17th December 1960; District Multan. Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 62‑Temporary route permits can be granted in three specific circumstances enumerated in S. 62‑ Essential requirements of S. 62 are to be complied with before granting permits. Kh. Abdur‑Rahim for Appellant.. Ghulam Abbas Jafri for Respondent No.

3. This is an appeal against the order of R. T. A., Multan granting two temporary permits to respondent No.

2. The route in question is Multan‑Mailsi, about 54 miles. At their meeting held on the 26th October 1960, R. T. A. considered, on the basis of Secretary's survey report, the question of increasing the number of permits on this route keeping in view the reported increase in the volume of traffic. R. T. A. considered the cases of all applicants and granted four new permits to certain parties other than respondent No.

2. As regards respondent No. 2, R. T. A. held that it did not deserve any permit on this route because its headquarters were at Bahawalpur from where it could not control its operations and that it was not certain whether it had a proper workshop or where it was located. Secretary, R. T. A. had reported that at least four permits were required to cope with the increase in the volume of traffic on this route and, therefore, R. T. A. stopped at four new permits. Respondent No. 2, however, filed an application to the Chairman, R. T. A. Lahore challenging the validity of the grounds on which it was refused the permits. The Chairman's office reported that the two grounds on which it was refused permits were not well founded and the Chairman hurriedly ordered that the respondent should be given two temporary permits for two months, pending the reconsidera tion of the case by R. T. A. At its next meeting on 7‑12‑1960, R. T. A. confirmed the Chairman's order and finally granted two temporary permits to respondent No.

2. In appeal it has been urged that the respondent No. 2 adopted a mala fide device to obtain permits from the Chairman and R. T. A. that section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable to the case and that R. T, A. should not have granted it temporary permits to the prejudice of the existing operators of whom the appellant is one There is no doubt that the route after the addition of four new permits is served by a fairly large number of services, something like 18 return services a day, besides a number of services plied on various sections of the route. It is also clear that there were no temporary need to be met by temporary permits after the addition of your permanent permits. It has been argued that section 62 vests complete discretion in the R. T. A. .to grant temporary permit, and that this discretion should not be inter fered with. But it would appear that section 62 while enabling R. T. A. to grant temporary permits at its discretion also requires that temporary permits could only be 'granted in three specific cir cumstances enumerated at (a), (b) and' (c), (a) and (b) .did not obviously apply and it is not claimed that either of them could be made 'applicable. As regards (c) which allows a temporary permit to be issued to meet a particular temporary need, this also did not exist because there is no mention in any order or in any report including Secretary's survey report that there is any cir cumstance or temporary rush of traffic on the route which could only be met by issuing temporary permits. Actually the whole trend of the reports and notes on the file is that the volume of traffic on this route has increased and more permanent permits are required to cope with‑it. 1f some injustice had been done to R respondent No. 2 by wrong reports, the obvious remedy was either for the respondent to come up in appeal against R. T. A's. order of the 26th October 1960 or for R. T. A. to advertise some more permanent permits and to reconsider respondent. No application for them along with other applications. By following this normal procedure the existing operators would also have had an opportunity to present their objections. Instead, respondent No. 2 resorted to the device of applying for temporary permits under section

62. Unfortunately the essential requirements of section 62 could not be complied with in this case and, therefore, an existing operator has legitimate grievance about the grant of temporary permits I had stayed the implementation of R. T. A's. order granting temporary permits and nothing seems to have happened since then to warrant the conclusion that there was any particular need which could only be met by grant of temporary permits. 1, therefore, regard R. T. A's. order as misconceived, which must be set aside. If there is need for more permits on this route they should be advertised and disposed of according to law.. In effect the appeal is accepted. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed. Appeal accepted.