P L D 1959 W (PLP)

Secretary, R. T. A., Multan. By their order dated 25th, 26th and 27th July, 1957 in regard to the Bahawalpur to Ahmadpur Route, R. T. A., Multan made the following changes:‑ (a) Increased the‑permits on this route from eight to nine; (b) Made them all permanent; previously they were all temporary , (c) Gave four permits to United Bus Service Ltd. Appellants, three to Abbasia Transport Company Respondent (No. 2) and two to Zamindara

‑Transport Company Respondent (No. 3). Previously all the eight permits were held by Appellants.

2. Appellants' case briefly is that they were the sole operators on this route albeit on the basis of temporary permits and, as there were no complaints against them, they felt they had a better case to receive all the permits that the R. T. A. had to give on this route than either of the Respondents, one of whom was quite new to the field and the other one viz. Respondent No. 3 was quite new to this route. They also allege that the order of the Authority was discriminatory and that the increase in the number of permits had not been made on any scientific basis or for any sound reason. They pray that the grant in favour of Respondents 2 and 3 should be cancelled and they should be given the remaining four permits that they had applied for.

3. It has been urged on behalf of the Respondents that the grant of temporary permits on the route created no rights of all permanent nature in favour of the Appellants. This is correct and I hold accordingly. But the order of the Authority itself explains why Appellants were granted a lesser number of permits than they had applied for. The reason was to break their monopoly on this rote. Appellants urge that there was no monopoly in their case as there were other operators plying to stations within or beyond the terminus the route under appeal without corridor restrictions. I do not think this really changes the basic fact and hold that the reduction in the number of permits of the Appellants involved in the process was for a sound reason. Regarding the allegation of the Appellants that a different view was taken in the case of Maqbool Javeed Company (vide para. 10 (b) of the petition of appeal), I accept the explanation of the Authority that their decisions are based on the merits of each case and the conditions prevailing in the particular area. Besides, I find that, in the case of Maqbool Javeed Company, the Authority gave only two permits on the route and perhaps found it in advisable to introduce more Companies within this small number of permits.

4. The other questions raised by the Appellants are, shy were their permits reduced from eight to four and why were Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred to them. It is true that the decision to break the monopoly implied the bringing in of one I or more operators on this route but it is not clear from the order of the Authority or the comments on the ground of appeal received from them, why for this, it was necessary to introduce two more operators on it and not just one; also why the number of Appellants' permits was fixed at four and not more. It is not clear either why the number of permits on the route was increased by one. I do not see that there was any sound reason for this. There is also apparently some force in the contention of they Appellants that the order of the Authority was discriminatory. From the order, it is clear that the fact that the Appellants were "outsiders" (in the sense that they did not belong to the former Bahawalpur State Area) was taken into consideration while fixing the permits to be granted to them at the reduced number of four. In that sense, Respondent No. 3 also were "outsiders" but that fact evidently was not allowed to adversely affect them. The contention of the Appellants that they were no complaint against them, is not rebutted. In the circumstances whatever the justification for the grant of permits to Respondent No. 2, there certainly was no reason to prefer Respondent No. 3 over the Appellants who were existing operators on the route with a good record.

5. I, therefore, order that the number of permits on this route should be reduced from nine to eight and they should be granted as under:‑ Five to Appellants Three to Respondent No. 2 In the case of the Appellants, I have arrived at the figure of five permits after taking the condition of their fleet of buses into consideration. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.