P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

Head Assistant, Office of the Secretary, R. T. A. Rawalpindi for Respondent No.

1. Nemo for Respondents. This order will dispose of another appeal of a similar nature (R. O. A. M. No. 59 of 1957‑58), as the facts are the same. The appellant preferred an appeal (R. O. A. M. No. 59 of 1957‑8) against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, taken in its meeting held on 21st and 23rd of May 1958, by which four temporary Stage Carriage permits were granted to Karwan Bus Service Gujranwala (Respondent No. 2) for a period of four months on Hafizabad‑Gujranwala route. Again, the Authority in its decision dated 23‑9‑1958, further granted four Stage Carriage permits to the same company on the same route for the same period. The appellant's company preferred this appeal (R. O. A. M. No. 20 of 1958‑59), against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, dated 23‑9‑1958.

2. As stated above, nobody represented Karwan Bus Service (respondent No. 2) despite service and consequently the case was taken up in their absence.

3. The temporary permits were granted under section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and these could be granted for limited purposes given below and for none else (i) For the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings ; (ii) For the purposes of seasonal business ; and (iii) To meet a particular temporary need. Although no appeal lies against the grant of temporary permits under section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in view of novel procedure adopted by the R. T. A. Rawalpindi, for the grant of temporary permits to Karwan Bus Service (respondent No. 2), it seems necessary that the case should be examined, with reference to the order passed by the Authority. In the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi it is mentioned that the services already plying between Hafizabad‑Gujranwala were insufficient as compared with the demand of the travelling public because Hafizabad Mandi had achieved considerable importance. The demand as such is of a permanent nature and the grant of permit for permanent purposes is governed by section 57 of the g Motor Vehicles Act and not by section

62. The order of the R. T. A., is not inconsonance with the provisions of the statutory law. The Authority further by its decision dated 23‑9‑1958, granted four temporary permits on the same route to respondent No. 2 (Karwan Bus Service). It seems the grant was made for a period of eight months, and was illegal, because no temporary permit could be granted for a period exceeding four months.1 The provisions of section 62, could not be invoked to grant the permit as against permanent needs.

4. The Head Assistant of the office of the R. T. A., Rawalpindi, stated the Authority had decided to advertise the route in question under section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act and further action was being taken in accordance with the pro?visions of this section. This being so, both the appeals are dis?missed with the above observations. K. M. A.? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.