P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

District Quetta. Route permit‑Existing operator, if his previous record is satisfactory, has equal claim with new‑comer, but has no preferential claim. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi for Appellant. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondent No.

2. Head Clerk for Secretary R. T. A. Quetta. The petitioner Company operated Chaman‑Quetta route from 1948‑55, with four permits. Out of its four permits, one of its off‑shoots, Mujahid & Co. secured two in 1953. Then another off‑shoot of the petitioner Company, which is now respon dent No. 2 (Bogra Transport Company), got an additional service on the same route from R. T. A. in 1955. Lastly the petitioner Company lost its remaining two permits in 1959, which were 'at allotted to another Company viz., Shah Muhammad Transport Co. The petitioner did not file an appeal against the loss of these two permits. But he filed a writ petition before the High Court in respect of the additional service granted to the Bogra Transport Company in 1955. The High Court cancelled its allotment on the ground that R. T. A. had not complied with the procedure laid down in section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court did not adjudicate upon the claims of the parties and left it to R. T. A. to pass an order on merits. R. T. A. after complying with the procedure prescribed in section 57 and weigh ing the claims and counter‑claims of the competitors decided on the 20th November 1958, that the Bogra Transport Company should be granted the additional service on Chaman‑Quetta route for three years. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed an appeal before me. R. T. A. has furnished this Court with a very detailed report dated the 30th April 1959,offering comments on all the petitioner's pleadings. It would appear from this report that the petitioner had six very old vehicles, either 1941 or 1942 model, and persistently failed to produce certificates of their road‑worthiness which were called for by R. T. A. more than once under the Rules. Further the petitioner's services completely broke down from November 1953 to January 1954. The petitioner failed to report this failure of its services. It also appears that its services even upto October 1953 were most unsatisfactory as it was prosecuted 46 times during the year. The petitioner's reply to all these allegations simply is that R. T. A. did not help it in procur ing new tires. But this is a stock argument which does not relieve it of its own responsibility for keeping its vehicle in a fit condition for satisfactory service. Actually what appears is that the petitioner was simultaneously operating Quetta‑Chaman Kandhar route for goods traffic and it diverted at least four of its vehicles to that service presumably because it was more profitable. From certain documents filed on behalf of the Bogra Transport Company it appears that Managing Director of the petitioner Company actually framed out his services on Quetta Chaman route to other parties; there were differences between these parties and the Managing Director; and the latter went to Civil Court for recovery of his dues. This was incidentally quite contrary to the law and rules under the Motor Vehicles Act. Influenced by all these considerations, R. T. A. naturally refused to give it the additional service. An existing operator has an equal claim with a new comer provided its previous record is satisfactory and its service is reliable; but it has ipso facto no preferential claim to it. Another argument advanced vehemently on behalf of the petitioner is that this additional service was not really required and that it was provided merely to favour respondent No.

2. It would appear from R, T. A.' report that when the question of providing an additional service came up, an enquiry was made by a Police Inspector and the enquiry was checked up by S. S. P. Baluchistan; and when the Railway member on the R. T. A, opposed the move on behalf of the Railway, the matter was referred to the local Administration and it was only when the Local Administration sanctioned the proposal that R. T. A. finally granted the additional service to respondent No. 2 at a meeting presided over by the Commissioner. I find no substance what soever in the insinuations made against R. T. A. for showing undue favour to respondent No.

2. Holding that the petitioner's previous record as an operator on this route was thoroughly unsatisfactory and that R. T. A. has fully complied with the procedure for granting stage carriage permits required under the law, I would dismiss the appeal. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.