P L D 1960 W (PLP)

Respondent No. 2 has since slightly amended its name and become "Ravi Transport Society". This verbal change in the name has been accepted by both the parties. When the appeal was revived for hearing, an application was filed on behalf of Shahkot Bus Service with the request that it may be impleaded as a party to the appeal because the impugned order affected its rights also as an operator on part of the route sanctioned for the Ravi Transport Society. Under section 64 (f ) an existing operator can file an appeal only if it had opposed the grant of the permit at the appropriate stage under section 57,1 but as Shahkot Bus Service had not opposed the respondent's' application for route permits, its application at this stage could not be treated as an appeal and I, therefore, refused to impaled' Shahkot Bus Service as a party to the proceedings before me. The learned counsel for the appellant‑Company and the respondent‑Society have argued the case at great length. The foremost contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the route sanctioned by R. T. A. for respondent No. 2 was wholly different from the route applied for and advertised by R. T. A., that this modification was made in a clandestine manner, that the existing operators had no knowledge of it who have, for that reason, been precluded from raising objections or making representations under section 57 and from filing appeals under section 64 and that the change made in the route was designed to favour the respondent‑Society in which the then Member Secretary was interested on account of his close relatives being its important co‑sharers. It is a fact that the route originally applied for by the respondent‑Society was Lahore‑Gojra via Sharqpur, Jaranwala and Lyallpur, whereas the R. T. A. changed the route to Lahore‑Gojra via Sheikhupura, Shahkot and Lyallpur; it is also a fact that this change in the route was not notified to the public. The appellant‑Company is operating part of this route, Lyallpur‑Gojra and, therefore, feels aggrieved by the addition of a new operator. Rule 4'8 (2) no doubt allows R. T. A. to modify the terms of the original application in a "reasonable degree". Therefore, the very first question that must be answered is whether the change made by R. T. A. was "reasonable". Lahore‑Gojra is 144 miles; Lyallpur‑Gojra is 46 miles; the revised route only preserved the latter and diverted the rest, viz. about 2/3rds of the original route, to the new one via Sheikhupura and Shahkot. Lahore and Lyallpur are connected by two roads, one via Jaranwala and the other via Sheikhupura; the two roads stand wide apart having different and distant mid stations; both are extremely busy roads with almost incessant transport services; the Jaranwala route is 87 miles and the Sheikhupura

85. In these circumstances, a saving of 2 miles was hardly of any con sequence and neither R. T. A. nor respondent No. 2 has been able to give the rationale of this unusual modification of the original route. There was no public demand for it there was no question of public convenience involved in it; bath the routes are commonly and equally in use and nothing was to be gained by this arbitrary diversion. The modification made by R. T. A., therefore, was neither "reasonable" nor justified in terms of Rule 4‑8 (2). On the other hand, this sudden and undisclosed alteration of the major portion of the route put the many existing operators of the Lahore‑Sheikhupura‑Lyallpur route clearly at a dis advantage. It was different with the petitioner who was in any event interested in the tail end of the route, Lyallpur‑Gojra, and it filed its representation under section 57 (3) and secured a right to come up in appeal before the Board of Revenue under section 65 (f ). But the operators on the Lahore‑Lyallpur part of the route remained completely in the dark about this change and were deprived of their right to make representations under section 57 (3) and, in consequence, to file an appeal under section 64 (f

1. As I have stated above, I have not allowed the Shahkot Bus Service which is interested in part of the altered portion of the route to be impleaded on a technical, legal ground; but the fact remains that it was for no fault of its own deprived of its right to make a representation under section 57 (3) and to file an appeal under section 64 (f ). The argument advanced in reply that none of the existing operators on the Lahore Sheikhupura‑Lyallpur route have objected or made represen tations is an argument in a circle and fallacious. They could not make their representations or file their appeals not because they were not interested, but because the whole thing remained a secret and was not known to anybody until the date of the public hearing when it was too late to move under section 57 (3). It has been openly alleged that the route was drastically changed in order to favour the Ravi Transport Society, in which some close relations of the then Member‑Secretary, Mr. M. G. Cheema, were financially interested. A written statement has been filed to the effect that Mr. Cheema's own brother‑in‑law (his sister's husband) owns a share in the Society ; and taking the shares of other relations, the total comes to a six‑anna share. This statement has been accepted by the representative of the Ravi Transport Society present in Court. Of course it is not possible for me to determine exactly what part, if any, Mr. Cheema played in the proceedings of the R. T. A. meetings. But what I am clear about is that the manner in which and the extent to which the route was modified were likely to give rise to misgivings in the mind of the opposite‑party. It is true that Rule 4'8 (2) does not require re‑advertisement of the altered application, but where the modification is so far e aching that it almost substitutes the proposed route by a new route the least that the R. T. A. should have done was to notify the change to the public in order to give them an opportunity to urge their representations, if any. Rule or no rule, this was what justice, equity and good conscience required in the peculiar t circumstances of the case. The R. T. A. cannot have it both ways i.e. set no limits to its power to modify the original applica tion under Rule 4'8 (2) and at the same time keep the change from those, who are interested in it, so as to render the provisions of section 57 ineffectual. The learned counsel for the respondent‑Society has particularly stressed his argument that the appellant‑Company is not seriously affected because it handles only 1 /3rd of the route. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, has shown that the Lyallpur‑Gojra route comprising 46 miles is unremunerative on account of the keen competition of the railways, that it has already had to reduce its fare and that the addition of a new operator under a permit including no corridor conditions could only result in causing it further loss. Slightly more than 1/3rd of a route is not in itself a negligible interest and there is no doubt that the route, Lyallpur‑Gojra, is an unremunerative route. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellant Company is not directly or adversely affected by the four permits granted by R. T. A. to the respondent‑Society on a route (Lyallpur Gojra) which seems to be of no great importance from the point of view of volume of traffic. The question of interpretation of rule 4,8 (2) came up in an appeal heard by Mr. Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue, Rajput Bus Transport Society v. R. T. A. Lahore (P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 12;), facts of this case were no doubt different but the broad proposition stated by him in this case deserves to be quoted. " In the case of a variation the fundamental idea would be that the basic route remains unchanged and some slight altera tion which does not divert it altogether to any other route is made, still keeping intact basically the original route." 1n the case before me the alteration made by R. T. A. cannot, by any stretch of argument, be characterised as a slight or minor alteration. The permits in question are due to expire on the 26th May 1960 and I raised the question whether it was worthwhile under taking this probe in appeal at this very late stage. The reply of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if a wrong has been committed it should be rectified as otherwise its beneficiary would be entitled, under the Motor Vehicles Act, to further advantages as an existing operator at the expense of the appellant and other interested parties. In consequence, I hold that R. T. A's order granting these permits to the respondent‑Society was unjustified and unwarranted. An order of this kind cannot be allowed to stand and 1 accept the appeal and cancel the four permits of the respondent‑Society on the Lahore‑Sheikhupura‑Shahkot‑Go: route. K.M. A. Appeal accepted.