P L D 1962 W (PLP)

Ghulam Sarwar, Managing Director Murree Hill Transport and Muhammad Bashir for Appellant. Ali Wall Zaidi for R. T. A., Rawalpindi. This order will dispose of the three connected Appeals No. 140, 141 and 274 of 1958‑

59. The two appellants Pindi‑Murree Transport Company and Murree Hill Transport Company have been plying taxies from Pindi to Muree with the permission of the R. T. A. Sometime ago the R. T. A. received applications from other parties requesting that they also should be granted permits to ply on this route. The matter was considered by the Authority in their meeting held on 10th March 1959 when they decided that a survey of the transport requirements of the region should be carried out by the Member‑Secretary and that two existing permit‑holders I.e., the appellants could not be considered as monopolists of this route. Before, however, a survey could be completed the Authority in their meeting held on the 29th August 1959, took note of the fact that shifting the Capital from Karachi to Rawalpindi and of the Diplomat Corps to Murree necessitated providing additional transport facilities. The survey, therefore, was dis pensed with and fresh applications were invited from persons in possession of 1954 and later model cars to ply as taxies on this route. It was also decided that a special check of the existing taxies plying on this route should be carried out and permits of taxies found unfit be cancelled unless the owners were prepared to replace them. It is against these two decisions of the R. T. A. that the existing permit‑holders have come up in appeal. Two main arguments have been urged before me. Firstly that the order passed indicating that taxies manufactured in a particular year only would be allowed to ply on this route does not find any sanction in the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules. This contention is not denied but the R. T. A. In their meeting of 20th August have modified their earlier order and have now directed that a complete check of the existing taxies be carried out and permits of vehicles found unfit should be cancelled unless the owners are prepared to replace them. This order is per fectly valid and cannot be objected to. The second argument that has been urged is that the two appellants are more or less monopolists and the introduction of any new operators on this route should not be allowed. The word monopoly does not occur in the Motor Vehicles Act or the rules framed under it. What the appellants really mean is that according to a Scheme of Rationalisation which had been prepared by the Provincial Government they only were allowed to operate on this route. This was some years ago and at that time the route was seasonal in character, so the issue of any further permits was discouraged. That may be so. In the present circumstances as already stated ft is no longer a seasonal route and it cannot be denied that transport requirements of the public have increased very con siderably Indeed since then for the reasons given above. While issuing fresh permits 1 have no doubt that the provisions of section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act will receive due consideration at the hands of the R. T. A. There is, however, no substance in this appeal; on the contrary in my opinion the action taken by the R. T. A. is perfectly correct and justified on facts. As a result the three appeals stand dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.