P L D 1962 W (PLP)

Amanatullah for New Lyallpur-Samundri Transport Company Group `A'. Abdul Jalil, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Lahore. This order will dispose of the two connected transport appeals No. 24 and 25 of 1960-61. The Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, In their meeting held on the 31st August 1960, renewed the stage carriage permit of the New Lyallpur-Samundri Transport Co. respondent No. 1 to ply between Lyallpur and Mehar Shahana and of the Pakistan-Lyallpur-Samundri Transport Company, respondent No. 2 for the shorter Tandalianwala to Mehar Shahana route for a period of three years each. Objection had been taken to the renewal by Cheema Transport Company, the appellant on the ground that the services of the two respondents from, Tandalianwala to Mehar Shahana were not running regularly or in accordance with the schedule and for that reason the renewal should not be granted. The Regional Transport Authority however gave the two respondents a chance to make their services more regular by temporary renewal for a period of three months and after having satisfied themselves that the services had improved, renewed the permits for a period of three years. It is against this order of renewal that the Cheema Transport Company have come up in appeal. An objection has been taken that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act for an appeal against renewal of permit. Section 58, subsection (2) of the Act lays down the procedure for renewal of a permit and this is to be as if it were an application for a new permit. There is, however, a proviso that other things being equal an application for renewal has to be given preference over new applications for permits. It is urged that as the procedure for renewal of a permit is the same as for a new grant, the word "permit" used in section 64 (f) of the Act, which gives the power to file an appeal to certain public authorities or an association, should be interpreted to include renewal of a permit. This contention cannot be accepted. The right of appeal does not exist as a matter of course and is specially created by statute. Thus unless it were specifically laid down that an association which the appellant Company purports to be and which has opposed the renewal of a permit, can file an appeal an existence of this right cannot be presumed or inferred. The provisions of section 58 which relate to procedure for granting renewal cannot be so read into those of section 64 as to give this right of appeal by implication. As observed the former section is merely procedural in character and it is section 64 which grants the right to file an appeal. Again if the word `permit' were interpreted to include renewal the provisions of section 64 (e) would become redundant in view of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, subsection (e) specifically gives the right to a person aggrieved by refusal to renew a permit to appeal to the prescribed authority and a similar right is given to an aggrieved person under subsection (a) to appeal against the refusal of the transport authority to grant a new permit. It is thus obvious from the context that the word `permit' cannot be so interpreted as to include its renewal also. I would accordingly hold that the law does not provide for an appeal against renewal of a permit sanctioned by the Regional Transport Authority. Even on merits the two appeals have no force. The Regional Transport Authority made enquiries whether the respondents were running their services regularly and came to the conclusion that during the period of three months' grace which had been given to them they had carried out the necessary improvements in this behalf. The Regional Transport Authority were thus justified in granting, the renewal asked for. As a result of the above discussion I would dismiss both the appeals. K. M. A. Appeals dismissed.