P L D ﷓1962 W (PLP)

Javed Iqbal for Trans‑Pakistan Bus Service. Muhammad lqbal Khan for Taraq Goods & Passenger Trans port Company. Bashir Geelani for Secretary R. T. A. This order will dispose of the eight connected transport Appeals No. 98, 100, 104,106, 109, 110, 112, 116 of 1959‑

60. They all relate to the same route and were dealt with by the P. T. A. in the same meeting by what may be termed a single composite order. The facts briefly are as follows :‑ The Provincial Transport Authority advertised for the grant of 5 stage carriage permits for Lyallpur‑Chistian Road via Chichawatni, Burewala and Hasilpur. There were several applicants including the eight appellants and the respondent Tariq Goods and Passenger Transport Company. The Provincial Transport Authority considered the case in their meeting held on 15th‑17th March 1960 and after considering carefully the merits of the various applicants decided to grant the five permits to the respon dent Company. The main reasons which influenced the Authority were that this Company had a sound financial position ; had imported 24 new bus chassis, bodies on 12 of which were under construction. In addition it bad placed further orders for another 12 new chassis. The general grounds for rejecting the applica tions of the appellants were that their fleets consisted of a number of old vehicles, and they could hardly run satisfactorily even their existing services. Further, in certain cases their were Internal disputes which had adversely affected their efficiency. They have also now come up in appeal. Several pleas have been raised and most of them are common to all. For instance in most cases the appellants are holding permits to ply on a part of the route in question and this fact, it is argued gave them a priority for consideration by the Provincial Transport Authority. Under the Motor Vehicles Act no applicant has a right to a route permit but a plea is raised that the pro visions of section 47 (1) (c) of the Act imply that existing transport services have some sort of a claim. The interpretation of this section came under the consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of the Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. The Sargodha -Bhera Bus Service, Sargodha and others (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 437). It was observed by Mr. Justice Cornelius, as follows: ‑ " . . . . consideration (c) of the six considerations enumerated above expressly requires a Regional Transport Authority to take into account the effect upon existing services of the introduction of a new operator, and this must necessarily be accepted in the widest sense, to include both profit as well as loss. It may be that the existing passenger service is operating under great strain, owing to the traffic being heavy. In such a case the introduction of a fresh service would make things easier for the existing service, by introducing another operator to carry the burden. On the other hand, where the traffic is barely sufficient to sustain the existing service, in an economic sense, to introduce a fresh service might entail loss to the existing operator as well as to the new, unless it be that the traffic needs to be developed by better business methods or greater efficiency that has been displayed by the existing service. The question may be considered from very many different aspects . . . . . Now it is quite obvious that there is sufficient traffic on this route as even after the grant of these five permits by the Provincial Transport Authority the Regional Transport Authority, Lahore have proceeded to grant further permits to some of the appellants themselves. The argument that the grant of the permits under examination had adversely affected existing services therefore does not hold water. It would be reading too much into the provisions of subsection (1) (c) of section 47 to infer that existing services have any claim to further permits. On going through the record one comes to the conclusion that the Provincial Transport Authority considered carefully the cases of the eight appellants and has reasonable grounds for refusing to grant them the permits applied for. It may here be mentioned that the Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, has subsequently granted four permits to two of the appellants-- Pakistan‑Lyallpur‑Samundri Transport Company Group A and Group B. The Evergreen Transport Company have also got three permits for this route and the Trans‑Pakistan Bus Service have obtained two permits. Their cases have thus received further consideration as they lave been granted permits to ply along the route in question. They have thus hardly any grievance left. It is also argued that the respondent Company is not a fit person to be granted these permits. This is admittedly a new concern but they have begun on the right lines by importing a large number of new vehicles and have a good financial backing. It would be in the interest of the public to import new blood in the transport services and thus create healthy competition. I am quite convinced that the action taken by the Provincial Transport Authority is fully justified and would for the above‑mentioned reasons reject all the eight appeals. R. M. A. Appeals rejected.