P (PLP)

AKHTER HUSAIN, F. C.‑This order will dispose of three appeals cited above. These appeals are against an order dated 29th June 1950, passed by the Regional. Transport Authority, Multan, whereby the Authority refused to grant to the appellants permits under section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The reason given for this refusal is that the Authority had received from the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority, Punjab, the programme of nationalization which Government had provisionally approved and proposed to carry out within the next five years. In the opinion of the Authority this programme was a sufficient declaration required by my predecessor vide his orders dated 26th November 1949, and 3rd May 1950, wherein he had laid down that unless Government were prepared to declare that within a reasonable time they proposed to nationalise a particular route in accordance with the general policy of nationalisation, permits to these companies should be issued on permanent basis.

2. It may be pointed out at the very outset that the decision of the Authority to continue to issue temporary permits to those companies under section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to say the least quite illegal. It was held by my, predecessor vide his order dated 26th November 1949, in R. O. A. M. No. 162 of 1948‑49 (The Lower Bari Co‑operative Transport Society, Montgomery v. Regional Transport Authority, Multan) that the fact that the Regional Transport Authority has been issuing temporary permits along these routes for many years show conclusively that services along these routes are required and should be allowed in the interest of the general public ; in other words, they are not required to meet a particular temporary need which is the condition laid down in section 62 of the Act for the issue of a temporary permit. The Regional Transport Authority has, however, issued temporary permits on the ground that all these services are to be nationalised. The obvious reply to this argument is that this reason has been used for several years past in passing such orders and even now services have neither been nationalised nor have final orders been received from the Govern ment in regard to such nationalisation. Also Nationalisation Bill must lay down the conditions on which these private services will be acquired by Government and hence it will not be more difficult for Government to takeover a service with a permanent permit than it would be to take one with a temporary permit". These remarks of my predecessor still hold good. It has also been laid down in A. I. R. (38) 1951 All. 257 F. B. (Moti Lal and others v. The Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh) that the Regional Transport Authority is a quasi‑judicial body. Applica tions for permits must be considered on merits and the authority must bring to bear independent and impartial mind and act in accordance with sections 47 and 48 of the Act. What matters are to be considered are given in the Act and Rules. Reasons not valid thereunder cannot be considered. The Authority must act primarily in the interest of travelling public. Finally, it has been laid down that the State Government intends to run its own buses is no ground for refusing permanent permits. Again, it has been laid down in A. I. R.‑ (38) 1951 Himachal Pradesh 36 (Baghat Transport Service Ltd. v.. the State of Himachal Pradesh) that refusal to renew existing permits on the representa tion of a new‑applicant, even though that applicant happens to be the State Government, and that on the ground o1nationalisation of transport was ultra vires the powers of the Himachal Pradesh Transport Authority. Still further it has been laid down in A.. I. R. (35) 1948 Mad. 400, that nowhere ‑in the Act is there any express provision by which the Central Transport Board and a Regional Transport Authority Board must act in accordance with orders of Government and there is nothing in the Act from which it should be implied that the Government can, by order, direct the two Boards in the exercise of their judicial and other functions. The Boards are completely independent, unfettered by the Government, save that they must observe notifications made pursuant to section 43.

3. All these rulings show that the Authority was not justified in refusing to grant permits to the appellants on the score that the scheme of nationalisation of transport was expected to be enforced by Government shortly.

4. The decision of the Authority in the present cases is not tenable on another ground also. Section 13 (2) of the West Punjab Transport Board Act, 1948 clearly lays down that the route permits of the undertakings or part of undertakings which have, prior to the date specified in the notifications issued under subsection (1) of this section, been operating services on routes so notified shall be deemed to have been cancelled with effect from the date specified in the said notification. That means that the Authority need not apprehend that if the appellants are granted permanent permits that step will lead to any' complications or in any way thwart the 'progress of nationalisation. Section 13 of the West Punjab Transport Board Act makes no distinction between holders' of temporary permits and those of permanent permits and as mentioned above all such permits without distinction, shall stand cancelled with effect from the date specified in the notification contemplated by subsection (1) of that section. The apprehension that Government may have to pay compensation if the business of these companies is terminated during the validity of a route permit, is also unjustified as section 15 of the Transport Board Act provides that no compensation for total or partial cessations of business shall be payable if the undertaking acquired by the Board came into existence on or after the 15th August 1947 and did not have rights of operating passenger and goods road transport services prior to that date in territory now forming West Punjab. This section even provides for compensation to persons who were in transport business, though under a different name and style, on the 14th August 1947. It would‑be very unfair for Government, much more for a quasi- Judicial body like the Regional Transport Authority, to deprive operators who have been running transport services regularly on prescribed routes of due compensation, by dubious means. In any case, I see, no justification for upholding the 'order appealed against. The appeals are accepted and the order appealed against set aside with the result that the appellants, if otherwise eligible, shall be allowed to have permanent permits under section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the minimum period admissible of 3 years. ' Announced. A. H. Appeals accepted.