P L D (Rev (PLP)

H. A. MAJID.‑The respondent company was granted the following permits to run stage carriages on three routes :‑ (1) Montgomery‑Pakpattan 2 B parts, (2) Montgomery‑Nurshah 2 B parts, and (3) Chunian‑Lahore 2 B parts. This decision was taken by the Regional Transport Authority on 9th December 1955. Cases Nos. 29 and 36 relate to the Lahore‑Chunian route, Case No. 28 relates to Montgomery‑Pakpattan route and Case No. 30 to Montgomery Nurshah route. The route Lahore‑Chunian requires special consideration in this case, because the portion Lahore‑Pattoki of this route also forms part of the Lahore‑Multan route. It is admitted by the respondent company that it had been given some stage carriage permits on the Lahore‑Multan route in July 1955, and that those permits were cancelled in September 1955, under section 43 (4) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In my opinion, the cancellation of those permits in September 1955, debarred the Regional Transport Authority, Multan, from giving the respondent company any new permit which would authorise them to use the whole or any part of the said Lahore‑Multan route. The result is that the stage carriage permits issued on the Lahore‑Chunian route deserve to be cancelled in appeal at least on the ground of the lack of the Regional Transport Authority's jurisdiction. The permits issued on the other two routes present the following unusual features :‑ (1) These permits have been issued to the' respondent company which has not run any transport business before; (2) The record of the relevant decision of the Regional Transport Authority starts by recounting that permits previously allowed to this company had been cancelled by Government. The intention, therefore, appears to have been that this company should be compensated by grant of fresh business. (3) The record of the decision mentions that the public had asked for further services on the two routes. Such a statement appears have been made merely for purposes of making a grant of new permits to a new applicant. A statement of this kind is valuable only if it is supported by facts and figures and the necessary facts and figures cannot be produced by the Regional Transport Authority unless they carry out a detailed scientific survey of the traffic conditions on the route The appellant company runs services on the Montgomery‑Nurshah route on the basis of 2 B part permits. The route is only 16 miles in length, and I cannot understand why it should be necessary to grant two more B part permits to a new competitor when an adequate number of services can be arranged with two buses being available whole time for the purpose. (4) When the permits for these two routes were given to the respondent company, or other applications from different parties were also pending in respect of those routes. For example, a company described as Mokal was such an applicant and its applications with reference to the two routes in question are mentioned in the minutes of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority in which the case of the respondent company was decided. There is nothing to indicate that the Regional Transport Authority compared the merits of the respondent company with the said Mokal Company regarding their eligibility to obtain new permits on the two routes in question. I consider that the only fair way of working is that the Regional Transport Authority should consider a route in detail and, after examining the facts and figures relating to the traffic needs of that route, take into consideration all applications for stage carriage permits of that route, before deciding which party should by granted what number of permits. Such a method has not been followed in the present case. In the above circumstances, I hold that the permits given to the respondent company were not justified. Those on the Lahore‑Chunian route could not legally granted to the respondent company. Those on the other two routes should have been granted only after observing the procedure which I have described above. I, therefore, accept these four appeals and direct the cancellation of the six B part permits in question. It will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the claims of the respondent com pany to permits on the Montgomery‑Pakpattan and Montgomery‑Nurshah routes afresh. The Authority need not wait for a fresh application from this company. A. H. Appeals accepted.