P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Rana Abdur Rahim for Khush‑hal Bus Service. Mohammad Saeed Khan for New Motors. Ch. Muhammad Saleem for Pak Valley Transport Co. Khalilur Rahman for Safdar & Co. Munawar Akhtar for Shahad Bus Service. Gul Mohammad Khan for Sher Bros. Zulqarnain, Secretary, R. T. A., Multan for Respondents. These eight Appeals viz. R. O. A. M. Nos. 77, 89, 101, 104 106, 105, 136 and 158 of 1963‑64, are against the decision of R. T. A., Multan, taken in their meeting held on the 5th, 6th and 7th of September, 1963, in respect of Chishtian -Lyallpur via Hassilpur‑Vehari‑Chichawatni route. Since the same questions of law and more or less the similar points of facts are involved in all the appeals, which are against the same decision of the R. T. A., they have all been heard together and are being disposed of by this one order. The Authority had held that 12 more particular permits were necessary on the route in question, and had invited applications accordingly. After considering all the applications and complying with the necessary formalities of section 57, Motor Vehicles Act, the R. T. A. granted permits to the respondents. The present appeals are against that order. One point of law urged on behalf of all the appellants is that under section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, R. T. A., Multan could only consider the cases of such applicants from Lahore and Multan Regions as had their principal place of business or residence in Multan Region. It may be pointed out here that the route covers Multan and Lahore regions. I do not think this is the correct interpretation. In the first place, section 45 is merely procedural and I do accept the argument on behalf of the respondents that this section is intended to cover cases in which an applicant suo motu asks for permits. Where, on the other hand, an R. T. A. calls for applications, it is open to everyone interested in the route to apply. It is quite another thing that at the time of granting permits the R. T. A. may give preference to local operaters if it is found that that will be in the public interest. But if the interpreta tion urged on behalf of the appellants were accepted, then whereas in this particular case an operator from Peshawar or Karachi could apply and be considered, only those operators will be exclud ed from consideration as had their places of business or residence in Lahore Region. That, I hold, would be a most untenable position. I, therefore, find that section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act is no bar to the consideration of applicants who have their residence or principal place of business in Lahore Region. Then each of the appellant has urged that in point of fact he had a better claim than the respondents. I would like to make a general observation here that where the applicants are more or les similar in their worth, ability and capacity and very small matters tilt the balance in favour of one or the other, the R. T. A. should invariably be considered the best judge of the merits. It consists of the senior most officials posted in the locality. It also has, among its members, responsible representatives of the public. This, the highest‑powered body that can be set up locally, has the necessary local information and is thus best placed to make selection. Unless, therefore, it is found that the decision of an R. T. A. is either illegal or perverse in point of fact or that some very serious error of fact has occurred, that decision is entitled to great deal of respect. It is, therefore, similar to a decision of a jury except that this jury consists of highly educated and trained persons also. I now discuss below the merit of each case. On behalf of Montgomery Bus Service it has been urged that their claim was turned down on wrong principle, that they did produce evidence of possessing surplus vehicles, and financial soundness. They have, however, failed to rebut the allegation that the vehicles alleged to have been owned by this Company had been recently transferred to them. This fact alone gives rise to the suspicion that the transfer was merely for securing permits. Their allegation that the respondents New Motor Service have not started plying yet has been denied. The United Haroonabad Bus Service have urged that they have only two permits, both of which are for un‑remunerative routes and they should have been given permits on this route. It has also been urged that they are financially sound and had produced evidence of this soundness before the R. T. A. The R. T. A. had, however, turned down their request on the ground that they had no spare vehicles and that they did not have any workshop facilities either. When the claims of others, as I shall presently indicate, were better, I think those two facts were enough to justify a rejection of their request. M/s. United Hansi Bus and Transport Co. have urged that they have not been given their right for a large number of their existing permits are going to be affected by the opening of this route. They already hold as many as 54 permits. I think this fact alone was good enough to justify rejection, for I do not think it is in public interest to set up such big concerns, which are owned by just a few. On behalf of Trans. Pakistan Bus Service, it has been alleged that none of the arguments urged against them was applicable. The order passed against them under section 60, Motor Vehicle Act was set aside in appeal. There is however, no getting away~ from the fact that their vehicles were involved in accidents which resulted in deaths. It has also been pointed out that a case has been registered with the police against this Company for forging permits. Their claim was, therefore, rightly turned down. On behalf of Friends Bus Service it has been urged that evidence of financial soundness and of possessing spare vehicles, was, in fact, produced and yet the request was turned down. The main reason for the rejection of their request, however, was that they already hold two permits on this very route. I think this was a good enough ground for turning down the request of this Company. Chishtian Bus Service have urged that the reasons given for rejecting their claim are not convincing. I do not agree with this argument. It has been pointed out by the R. T. A. that this Company had transferred to its name vehicles only one day before the date of the meeting. It very rightly aroused suspicion. It has been pointed out that the vehicles belonging to this Company were involved in a number of accidents. And in any case, it possesses as many as 20 permits. I think their request was rightly turned down. Chaudhry Bus Service have urged that they are very old operators, in fact the oldest from Bahawalpur Region and that they are already operating on the major part of the route and should have thus been given preference over others. The R. T. A. has pointed out that the vehicles possessed by this Company are very old models and that during the last three years their 9 vehicle were involved in accidents killing 6 and injuring 3 persons. This does not speak very highly of the efficiency of this Company. The request was, therefore, rightly turned down. On behalf of Pak Soldiers Co. it has been urged that they formerly used to operate on this route and they have many surplus vehicles. Their request, however, was turned down on the ground that their operational area is away from this route and that its five vehicles were involved in number of serious accidents and that it had no workshop facilities available on the route. In the circumstances, I think their claim was rightly turned down. I now mention a word in respect of each of the respondents whose requests for grant of permits were accepted. Respondent Khushal Bus Service had six spare vehicles, they produced evidence of financial soundness, of having workshop facilities at Burewala, which is on the route; none objected to the grant of permit to them and, therefore, R. T. A: granted them two B part permits. Respondent New Bus Service is plying on the route and the allegation and they have not utilised the permit has been denied. They produced evidence of possessing six spare vehicles, of having workshop facilities at Lyallpur, of possessing body‑build ing certificate and of being financially sound. The grant was, therefore; fully justified. Respondent Pak Valley Transport Co. imported vehicles against their own foreign exchange earnings. They have import ed vehicles of the latest model, which are lying idle for they are not permitted under the terms of the Import Permit to dispose of the vehicles. They have a large number of vehicles lying idle. The grant of two permits was, therefore, very correct. Respondent Safdar & Co. produced evidence of financial soundness, and of possessing surplus vehicles including two chassis of latest model. It was also proved that they were plying on Chishtian‑Haroonabad route. They were, therefore, rightly selected. Shahad Bus Service had surplus vehicles; they have been ply ing on un‑remunerative kacha routes; they have workshop facilities at Chishtian they were, therefore, rightly selected. Finally Sher Brothers also imported vehicles against their own foreign exchange earnings. They too have workshop facilities at Lyallpur. Their financial position is very sound. Their vehicles are like Pak. Valley Transport Co., doubtlessly their own have been lying idle and cannot be disposed of. The grant of two permits to them was, therefore, fully justified, I may mention here that the R. T. A. has acted very wisely in granting two B part permits to each of the grantees in view of the length of the route and it has also been wise in giving due consideration to the fact that applicants who had imported vehicles against their own foreign exchange earnings, deserved sympathetic consideration if it was proved that they were as good as others in all other respects. I think the decision of the R. T. A. calls for no interference and the appeals are accordingly dismissed. S. Q. Appeals dismissed.