P L D 1961 W (PLP)

AND ANOTHER‑Respondents Appeal No. 39 of 1960‑61, decided on 27th January =. District Lahore. Route permit‑Company applying for permit‑Record Company not satisfactory‑New permit not to be, ground that there was no other applicant. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. S. M. Zafar for Respondents. It would facilitate an appreciation of the facts of this case if a brief history of the grants made to Hamid Bus Service the respondent by the R. T. A. is given. The Authority had granted two permits for Mianwali‑Khushab and Mianwali‑Lahore routes to this Company at their meeting held on 27th to 29th May 1957. On appeal my learned predecessor remanded the case on 12‑7‑1960 for a fresh disposal by the R. T. A. In the meanwhile on 16th July 1960 the Authority had cancelled one permit each on the two above mentioned routes granted to the respondent company in 1957 and the appeal preferred by the Company was also rejected. Nevertheless three months later the Authority in pursuance of the earlier order of remand, in their meeting held on 15th to 17th October 1960, granted two permits each again for these two routes to the respondent. The appellant, the Muslim Bus Service had not applied for either of two routes at any stage of all these proceedings but were objectors to the grant of any new permits being old operators. Their Managing Director was present at the meeting held on 15th to 17th October but it is alleged that he was not allowed to appear and put forward his objections. This lapse of the Authority it is argued, is in contravention of the provisions of section 57 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act which requires the R. T. A. to dispose of these representations or objections at a public hearing at which the applicant and the person making the representation should have an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a duly authorised representative. This appeal is accordingly preferred under section 64 (f) of the Act. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent company admitting that the Managing Director of the appellant Company was present at the October 1960 meeting of the Authority, but he did not raise any objections. The record, however, is silent on this point. As already observed, the appellant company, however, had not applied for a permit for these routes and it would not, therefore, in order to grant them a permit. The record of the respondent company, nevertheless, does not appear to be satisfactory, and the R. T. A. themselves, only three months earlier before the new grants were made, had, cancelled one permit each of the 1957 permits. The mere fact that there were no other applicants should not be enough to grant them further new permits. The R. T. A. have recorded that the respondent had six buses in their possession and a capital of three lacs a fact which does not seem to be in keeping with the previous record of the company. In the above circumstances it would be more appropriated if the routes were advertised afresh by the R.T.A., applications invited and the entire matter reconsidered on merits. I would, therefore, accept the appeal and order accordingly. K. M. A. Appeal accepted. Appeal accepted.