P L D 1965 Dacca 33 (PLP)

A. M. SAYEM, J.‑The petitioner owns 4 Auto‑Rickshaws and holds a route‑permit for each one of them, issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Dacca. The permits are in Form P. Co. P. Part B. In each case the permit was granted for three years, one of which bearing No. 1080 is to expire on 19‑6‑65, another bearing No. 1277, on 7‑9‑65, the third, bearing No. 1397, on 9‑1‑66 and the fourth, bearing No. 1640, on 28‑7‑

66. Form P. Co. P. Part B is as follows:‑ Form P. Co. P. Part B. Summary to be exhibited on the vehicle . ..................... Transport Authority . Particular contract Carriage Permit No. P. Co. P.

1. Name of holder :............................

2. Registration mark :............................

3. Route/Area :...........................

4. Date of expiry :............................

5. Conditions :............................

6. Fare :..................pies per mile.

7. Type of Taximeter, if any ........................... Secretary Date .19 Transport Authority All the serials in the above form have been duly filled up by the Regional Transport Authority in each of the permits, except serial No. 7 which relates to taxi meters. By a notification bearing No. 43MV/10 dated 7th February 1964, published in the Dacca Gazette on the 26th February 1964, issued under the signature of the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, Dacca, and purporting to be in exercise of powers conferred by rule 173 of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules 1940, (sic) the said Regional Transport Authority required all owners of Auto‑Rickshaws plying within the district of Dacca to fix taxi meters of Osaka brand Fare Meter (Model Sk.) said to have been approved by the Provincial Government. In his petition, the petitioner has alleged that he was not aware of the Gazette Notification and that he came to know of the Notification for the first time on March 14, 1964 when the said Notification was published in the Morning News, a Dacca daily. He has further alleged that upon coming to know of the Notification from the Morning News of the said date he preferred an appeal under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that the said appeal having been presented beyond 30 days from the date of publication of the Notification in the Dacca Gazette the said appeal was not entertained on the ground of limitation. It was upon the appeal having been dismissed in limine that the petitioner moved this Court. Several points were taken in support of the Rule. Ultimately, however, the only point pressed was that by the notification in question the Regional Transport Authority was attempting to impose a new condition to permits already issued in favour of the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that imposition of a new condition to a permit already issued was not sanctioned by any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder. In the affidavit‑in‑opposition sworn by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Dacca, it has been stated that at the time of the issuing of the permits to the petitioner no fare meter was available and as such no condition for fixing any fare meter was imposed on the route‑permits. It has, however, been claimed in the said affidavit that under section 51(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) the Regional Transport Authority was within its rights to require that motor cabs should be fitted with taxi meters. Learned Advocate‑General referred us to section 51(d) of the Act and rule 173 of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, and contended that these provisions of the Act and the Rules authorise the Regional Transport Authority require fitting of taxi meters even in respect of permits already issued. Section 51(d) of the Act is in the following terms: "

51. Power to restrict the number of contract carriages and impose conditions on contract carriage permits.‑A Regional Transport Authority may, after consideration of the matters set forth in section 50,‑ (d) require that any motor cab shall be fitted with a taxi meter." Rule 173 of the Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules, 1940, authorise a Regional Transport Authority to require, by notification the Official Gazette, that within the limits of any Municipality or area as may be specified in the notification, a motor cab shall be fitted with a taxi meter of a pattern approved by the Provincial Transport Authority. Learned Advocate‑General seems to have overlooked the fact that section 51 of the Act refers to section 50, which lays down the procedure to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for such permits. This section is again proceeded by section 49 which relates to parti culars to be incorporated in such applications. Section 51 cannot thus be said to be an independent section. Clause (d) of section 51 authorising the Regional Transport Authority to require fitting to taxi meters must therefore be held to relate to the stage when the said Authority is to consider whether to grant or refuse the application for a route‑permit. On a plain reading of rule 173 of the Rules also it appears to us that the said rule does no more than provide the procedure to be followed by a Regional Transport Authority if it comes to decision that. motor cabs should be fitted with taxi meters, namely, that it has to obtain a prior approval of the Provincial Transport Authority as to the pattern of the meter to be fitted and that such approval and the decision for fitting of meters shall have to be notified in the official Gazette. We find nothing in section 51(d) of the Act or in rule 173 of the Rules authorising the Regional Transport Authority to add a new condition to and existing route‑permit. In the result, the rule is made absolute and it is declared that the notification in question, namely, 43MV/10 dated 7th February 1964, published in the Dacca Gazette on 27th February 1964, B under the signature of Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Dacca, has not affected the petitioner's aforesaid route‑permits. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. A. SATTAR, J.‑I agree. K. B. A. Rule made absolute.