P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

Route permit‑New permit can be granted only in public interest. Mahmood Ali Kasuri for Appellant. Secretary, R. T. A., Lahore. S. M. Zafar for Respondent No.

2. This is an appeal against an order of R. T. A. Lahore, passod at its meetings held on the 27th‑29th May 1957, granting two permits to respondent No. 2 on Sargodha‑Rakh Dhingana route in the Thal via Jhang, Athara Hazari and Bharari. The whole route is about 125 miles, the end portion between Bharari and Rakh Dhingana being 10 miles of Kacha road. The appellant is an existing operator on Sargodha‑Jhang portion of the route which covers 75 miles and which is no doubt the most important part of the whole route. The appellant's contention is that this is not a rational route justified by traffic conditions and has been devised to suit respondent No. 2 at the expense of existing operators on the Sargodha‑Jhang road. Rakh Dhingana is situated in the desert with little or no demand for transport facilities. In fact the Rakh has become known only because of a number of tube‑well lots granted in it by T. D. A. But most of the tube‑wells have not yet started working and the Rakh as a unit of Abadi is still in its nascent stage. Of course, most of these lots are held by influential persons who would like to have an occasional transport connection to enable them to carry their equipment to the Rakh. But so far as passenger traffic is concerned, there seems to be very little demand. An examination of the vouchers produced by respondent No. 2 in Court fully supports this conclusion. For example, the vouchers for August and September 1959, showed that no through tickets were issued for Sargodha‑Rakh Dhingana route and none for intermediate places beyond Jhang. This period, however, may not be taken to be a correct guide because this is the period when the floods normally occur. But Secretary, R. T. A. has also examined the vouchers for March and April 1960, which tell the same tale not even one through ticket (between Sargcdha and Rakh Dhingana) was booked and none for Jhang either. In other words the traffic conditions did not justify the linking of Sargodha and Rakh Dhingana. Quite naturally the R. T. A. received the complaint that the service of respondent No. 2 on the end portion of the route was not regular. Secretary R. T. A. personally made an inquiry and found that there was only one service in two days between Jhang and Bharari and none to Rakh Dhingana. A notice was issued by R. T. A. to respondent No .2 and after a great deal of fuss R. T. A. found that respondent No. 2 had improved the service to some extent and the matter was allowed to rest at that. Obviously the respondent increased its service on the end parts of the route to keep alive its permits on the Sargodha‑Jhang part. The linking of the Rakh to Sargodha is neither rational nor natural. It also appears to me that it cannot be said that R. T. A. had any intention to break the monopoly of the appellant on the Sargodha‑Jhang route. There are four or five Companies operating it and although the appellant Company has the largest number of permits it cannot be said to have a monopoly. Sometime back R. T. A. granted to various Companies 10 permits on this route. In appeal they were reduced to five. It is, therefore, proper to conclude that the Sargodba‑Jhang route is fairly well operated and there is no clear need for granting more permits for it. I, therefore, find that this route (Sargodha‑Rakb Dhingana) has not been created in public interest and the existing operators on the most important part of it (Sargodha‑Jhang) have a legitimate grievance against this device. The appeal in effect is accepted and the permits granted to respondent No. 2 are cancelled. K. M. A.?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????? Appeal accepted.