P L D 1964 W (PLP)

District Quetta. (a) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 57‑Provisions man datory‑Non‑compliance of provisions of S. 57, specially when no prejudice is caused to any party, does not vitiate entire proceedings. (b) Route permit‑

Decision of R. T. A. on point of fact carries great deal of weight. Dr. Javed Iqbal for Kalat‑Mastung Transport Co‑operative Society and Sarban Transport Co‑operative Society. Saeed Akhter for Haji Gul Muhammad Co‑operative Trans port. Basharat Ullah for Jhalwan Transport Co. Ltd. and Khusdar Transport Co. Ltd. These five appeals R. O. A. M. Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65 and 68 of 1962‑63 arise out of the same order of the R. T. A. And since the same points of law and more or less the same questions of fact are involved in them all, they are being disposed of by this one order. Applications were invited for the grant of stage carriage permits on Quetta‑Khuzdar route. Nine applications came up for consideration. The representative of each one of these was heard. "The Authority observed that the Zarak Co‑operative Transport Society, Zahri was the only company which is consisting of the shareholders belonging to the area and that it would be com paratively in a better position to serve the travelling public of the Ilaqa in the best manner. At was, therefore, decided to grant two B part permits to this Society. The decision was announced. R. T. A. has then gone to impose a corridor restriction. It is against this award of the two permits to Zarak Society that the present appeals have been filed. The first Point that deserves examination is the argument of the appellants that whereas the respondent had applied for only one permit, he has been granted two. This, it is urged is illegal. In support of the argument, it has been urged that compliance to the provisions of section 57 of Motor Vehicles Act is mandatory. It certainly is. But non‑compliance of a minor provision of this section, specially when it is shown that it has not caused prejudice to any party, does riot vitiate the entire proceedings. The appli cation of the respondent was there. It had been duly published. The objectors had an opportunity of objecting against the grant of permit to the respondent. They apparently availed of this opportunity. In the circumstances no one can claim to have been prejudiced merely by the fact that instead of one two permits were granted to the respondent. If the respondent had in his applica tion asked for two permits instead of one, this could not have afforded any fresh argument to the appellants to be used against the grant of the permit to the respondent. The only point that could be agitated is the financial capacity of the respondent to ply two vehicles instead of one. And a conclusive answer to that possible argument is furnished try the fact that the respondent it, fact secured two vehicles of the latest model and put them on the road. It is also relevant to point out that the route is very nearly 200 miles in length. The P. T. A. in their policy letter have specifically urged that where a route is more char 100 miles long, the permit giving: Authority should, as far as practicable, grant at least two permits to away one company to mike it ad economic proposition to the permit holder and convenient to the travelling public. The grant of two permits to the respondent was thus a compliance of the instructions of the P. T. A. Thus in view of the fact that the respondent's case for the grant of permit had been duly advertised and objections invited and con sidering that the appellants did have an opportunity and actually used it for opposing the grant of a permit to the respondent, a mere technical error cannot render the entire proceedings void or illegal. I find that the appellants have not been prejudiced by this error. And since this decision Is in furtherance of the directive of the P.T.A, this error is not considered serious enough to justify interference. It has then been urged that the respondent Co‑operative Society was not even formed when the permit was granted. This is not really so. The Society as such, had in fact existed when the application was made. It may not have been registered. And that is not a necessary condition in law. In point of fact, I am told that this registration has taken place since. It has then been urged that no formal survey had been made to ascertain whether or not there was any need for additional vehicles on this route. In view of the fact that the route had been duly advertised, that applications were invited and that the appellants themselves were among the applicant. I think it is too late in the day to agitate this point now. It has then finally been urged on behalf of each of the appellants that his was the best claim and in view of his good record of service as a transporter, he should have been given preferential treatment. The decision of the R. T. A. on point of fact has to be given a great deal of weight. It consists of the most responsible officers working in that area as also respected representatives of the public. This body of men who know the area, its requirements and the reputation and capability of the various operators, is in a better position to judge the suit ability of the various candidates than any other body. Unless, therefore, it is shown that the decision of the R. T. A. is perverse or extremely wrong, that judgment must be respected. In the present case, the R.T.A. has given one specific reason which seems to have weighed heavily in deciding the issue viz. that the res pondent Society consists of share‑holders belonging to the area. Now this is certainly an important consideration. It has been argued that the appellants also belong to the area But my attention has been drawn to one important point of difference viz. whereas the others belong to one of the terminal of the route viz. Quetta the respondent belong to a vast area through which this route passes. It has then been urged on behalf of the respondent that in the interest of the healthy competition the appellants should not be allowed to have the monopoly on the various sections of the route. It has also been argued that the local people must be encouraged to enter into this trade. And in any case, it has been urged, tribal consideration carry great weight in this part of the country. In the circumstances, I can find no reasons for interfering with the order of the R. T. A. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. K. M. A. Appeals dismissed.