P L D 1963 W (PLP)

Sargodha and 2 others. R.T.A., Lahore R. O. A. M. 174 of 1961‑62 Sargodha to Lahore Tariq Transport Company, Lahore and 14 others. R.T.A., Lahore As the route permits were granted in accordance with the same policy, contained in an identical preamble to orders of grant, they are being disposed of simultaneously. Originally these cases were fixed for 23rd April 1962, but at the request of the parties, they were taken up on the 20th April 1962.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on different dates in 1961, the Regional Transport Authority, Lahore (hereafter called the Authority) issued notices in newspapers calling applications for a limited number of permits on the routes in question. Subsequently the Authority issued a Press Note on 22nd December 1961, announcing that at its meeting held on 2nd December 1961, the Authority had decided "that any limited company having six or more buses shall be eligible to liberal licensing so far as permissible under the framework of the present law. The applications received in response to this declaration of policy were taken up for consideration at its meeting held on 9/ 10th February 1962. Item 8 of the Agenda of that meeting related to the consideration of the applications for stage carriage permits, and the minutes relating to this item begin with a lengthy preamble reviewing the transport position in the region and containing, inter alia, the following conclusion :‑ "After considering all these factors the Authority was of the view that the route permits may be issued liberally to every limited concern having six buses of latest model with it". This policy was announced at the beginning of the meeting, after which various applications were taken up and the route permits granted freely, in furtherance of this policy indicated above.

3. The appellants have urged that the procedure adopted by the Regional Transport Authority in these cases runs counter to the provisions contained in sections 47, 48 and 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and is in fact opposed to the entire scheme of control and regulation of transport under the said Act. In particular, it was urged that "in deciding whether to grant or refuse a stage carriage permit", a Regional Transport Authority is required to have regard to "the adequacy of existing road passenger transport services between the places to be served, and the effect upon those services of the service proposed". [Section 47 (1) (c)] and the condition of the roads on the proposed route or routes [section 47 (1) (f)]. It was also urged that the procedure adopted by the Authority left no scope for the statutory consideration of "any representations made by persons already providing road transport facilities along or near the proposed route" provided under section 47 and observance of the procedure under section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. On behalf of the respondents it was argued that (i) under S. 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act a Regional Transport Authority may or may not limit the number of stage carriages which would, otherwise and normally, remain unlimited and that (ii) under the same section it was open to a Regional Transport Authority to take a general policy decision with regard to stage carriage permits" "which may be granted in the region or in any specified area", without having to assess the requirements of individual routes. These two pleas cannot be accepted. To take the second plea first, it is true that under section 48 a Regional Transport Authority can take a decision about limiting the number of stage carriage permits etc., "in the region or in any specified area", but even under section 48 this step can be taken by a Regional Transport Authority only "after consideration of the matters set forth in subsection (1) of section 47". Observance of the provisions of section 47 is, therefore, essential, before section 48 comes into operation, and a general decision with regard to stage carriage permits "in the region or in any specified area" will not be valid, without observance of the provisions of section

47. The first plea also loses its force, in view of the wording of section 48, which underlines the prior necessity of "consideration of matters set forth in subsection (1) of section 47". Obviously this subsection does not visualise an unlimited operation of stage carriages as the norm, and lay, down a number of considerations on the basis of which a permit may be granted or refused.

5. The crucial question in the cases under appeal, is whether the provisions of section 47 [especially section 47 (1) (c)] of the Motor Vehicles Act have been observed before issue of permits to which exception is taken. This resolves itself into two issues: (i) Has the Authority taken into consideration "the adequacy of existing road passenger transport services and effect upon those services of the service proposed" with regard to individual routes for which permits have been granted, and (ii) if not, are the requirements of section 47 (1) (c) met by a general examination of the transport position, as contained in the preamble to the relevant proceedings of the Authority ?

6. It is admitted that the Authority has taken genera factors into consideration before framing its policy, and has made out a good case for a large‑scale liberalisation of the issue of route permits. These considerations, however, are of a general nature and there is nothing to show that the Authority had applied its mind to the assessment of the requirements of different routes. As a matter of fact, for all practical purposes, the grant of permits has been automatic in case of "every limited concern having six buses of latest model with it." This was conceded by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority who stated before me that the decision of the Authority was that the permits were to be granted to all such concerns except where, for special reasons, a different course had to be adopted. Excessive number of permits actually issued by the Authority, itself shows that it granted permits to all concerns satisfying the two conditions indicated in the preamble‑and to judge by the minutes, in many cases in which even these conditions were not fulfilled‑without examination of the requirements of the adequacy or otherwise of the existing services, the condition of the roads etc. The following table will make the position clear :‑ No. Route. Existing No. of Route Permits. Route Permits granted by the R.T.A., Lahore on 9th and 10th February 1962.

1. Lyallpur = Jauharabad 4 88

2. Lahore =Mianwali 2 41

3. Lahore =Sargodha 36 33.

4. Khushab=Mianwali ‑ 14

7. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that the Authority granted permits without having regard to the adequacy of existing transport services on individual routes. The only question left to be determined is whether under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 an assessment of requirements of individual routes has to be made or whether a general examination of the transport position in the region is enough. On this point section 47 (1) (c) is very clear. It lays down that a Regional Transport Authority has to take into consideration "the adequacy of existing road passenger transport services between the places to be served". The expres sion "between the places to be served" makes it crystal clear that the position with regard to individual routes has to be examined and a general review of the transport position in the region is not enough. By its failure to examine the transport position on individual routes, for which permits were granted, the Authority infringed a vital provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Under these circumstances I have no alternative but to declare that the procedure adopted by the Regional Transport Authority Lahore, in the cases under appeal, is ultra vires of section 47 of the. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and to set aside the orders of grant of route permits to respondents in these cases.

8. While coming to this conclusion I cannot ignore the fact that the Authority has very fully gone into the general question of adequacy or otherwise of the transport facilities and prevalence of certain abuses in its region, and has made out a very goon case for a substantial increase in these facilities. The need for liberalisation of permits was even conceded by the appellants . In view of the basic legal position the orders of the Regional Transport Authority are being upset, but this should not hamper the Authority in its efforts to provide additional transport facilities. As the need for increased transport facilities has been established, pending observance of proper Authority can roughly determine the additional immediate requirements, and after applying its mind to the adequacy of transport services on different individual routes, expeditiously issue a suitable number of temporary permits under section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

9. Subject to the observations made in para. 8 above, the appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to Regional Transport Authority, Lahore for fresh issue of route permits, after due observance of section 47 (1) (c) and other provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. For this purpose it will not be necessary for the Authority to invite applications afresh, but it will have to take into consideration the adequacy of existing road passenger transport services, and assess the requirements of individual routes. K. M. A. Case ramanded.