P L D 1960 W (PLP)

In this case Ex‑servicemen Public Transport Company District Jhelum, appealed under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against order dated 12‑11‑1959, of the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, by which the R. T. A: rejected the request of the appellant for grant of permit for route Jhelum to Chua Saidan Shah via Dhok Talian. The appeal was admitted on 12th December 1959 and an interim stay order was issued. On 22nd December New Jhelum Transport Company Ltd. also appealed against the same order of R. T. A. rejecting their claim for issue of a permit for the same route. Both these appeals were heard on 20th January 1960 and this order disposes of both the cases (R. O. A. M. Nos. 41 and 46 of 1959‑60). To deal with the appeal of New Jhelum Transport Company, Jhelum; its claim is based on its being the leading Transport Company of the District, with a large fleet of buses. The R. T. A. however, rejected its application on the plea that the Company had already sixty‑one route permits plying throughout the district and that further grant of permits to this company, even on a new route, would amount to giving it monopoly of the traffic in the district. Various rulings were cited in the course of hearing in support of the view that monopoly should not be ~, encouraged. There is a fair basis in this plea, and R. T. A. was on a firm ground when in dealing with a new route, requiring special attention, it decided not to grant it to a company with about 61 route permits. The appeal of New Jhelum Transport Company Ltd., Jhelum is accordingly rejected. This leaves for disposal the appeal of Ex‑servicemen Public Transport Company Ltd., Jhelum. It has been urged on behalf of this Company that:‑ (i) it is an organization of Ex‑servicemen ; (ii) it has a manager with ample experience of transport business, having been a Director, a Member of the Managing Committee of the New Jhelum Transport Company Ltd. and later on having been in charge of the Jhelum Stand of New Jhelum Transport Company Ltd. for 10 years. (iii) it has sound financial position. (iv) was in, possession of a truck which could easily be converted into a bus. At the time its application was con sidered, the company had an authorized capital of Rs. 1,00,000 out of which Rs. 45,000 was already subscribed and this was established by presentation of the Bank Account. On the other hand at the time when R. T. A. passed the order appealed against, the organization to which the permit was granted had neither any bus nor any subscribed capital. The very language of the order under which R. T. A. granted the request of this Company is revealing:‑ "Although it was felt that this company had no bus and any subscribed capital at the moment but it was a registered Company and dealing exclusively to the area meant to be served by this route. The share‑amount likely to be collected would be Rs. 50,000 which it was indicated, would be sufficient for the purchase of a bus." This extract would show that the company had no solid existence, at the time of the grant of permit and everything was in nature of promises and prospects. It was urged on behalf of Raja Anar Khan, Retired Sub‑Inspector of Police, District Jhelum & Co. that subsequent to the order they were able to get one jeep, one Truck (to be converted into a bus) and one Bus. This, however, relates to the period subsequent to the issue of the order, appealed against, and only shows that by grant of permit R. T. A., provided where with as to Raja Anar Khan & Co. to establish an organization. It was without any subscribed capital or vehicle at the time, it was granted the permit. R. T. A. is an administrative body and in exceptional cases it can grant a permit even on the basis of prospects and promises, but such an exception should be demonstrably on public grounds and normally not in favour of an individual or a limited individual i concern. So far as the prospects of running an efficient service are concerned, it cannot be easily argued that a Transport Company with Rs. 45,000 paid‑up share capital, in possession of at least one vehicle which could readily be converted into a bus and in charge of a person with long, direct experience of transport business, would operate less efficiently than another concern which had yet to collect any subscribed capital and was without vehicle of any sort at the time of the order. If such a stand is to be taken, ample reasons for taking this stand en public grounds are necessary. Neither the order of R. T. A. nor the comments obtained set forth the reasons for the unusual stand taken in this case. In these circumstances, it has to be held that in refusing the request of the Ex‑servicemen Public Transport Company, Jhelum and granting one `B' part permit, to an organization without any subscribed capital or vehicle, R. T. A. was not serving the interests of the public. I accordingly accept the appeal and set aside the order granting one `B' part permit in favour of Raja Anar Khan, Retired Sub‑Inspector of Police, District Jhelum & Company. A. H. Order accordingly.