Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: THE OKARA BUS SERVICE LTD., OKARA VS Respondent: THE RAVI TRANSPORT CO., (REGD.) OKARA & R. T. A. MULTAN
P L D 1956 (W
P L D 1956 (W. P.) Revenue 10
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
THE OKARA BUS SERVICE LTD., OKARA-‑Appellant
Versus
THE RAVI TRANSPORT Co., (REGD.) OKARA & R. T. A. MULTAN‑Respondents
Appeal No. 93 of 1954‑55, decided on 12th December 1955, against the order of R. T. A., Multan, dated 24th July 1955.
Motor Vehicle-----
---‑New route permit‑New concerns be encou raged, but not at expense of existing companies.
Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.
Sh. Bashir Ahmad and Sh. Khurshid Ahmad for Respondents
ORDER
NASIR AHMAD.‑These are two appeals against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Multan, passed in their meeting held on the 23rd and 24th July 1955, by which four stage carriage permits were granted to the Ravi Transport Company, the respondents, to ply between Okara and Head Sulemanki via Bunga Hayat. The Okara Bus Service Ltd., and the Lower Bari Co‑operative Society, Ltd., have appealed against this order and the main ground urged is that the existing services run by the appellant companies are sufficient to meet the requirements of the public and no additional transport facilities are needed. It is stated that the Okara Bus Service run four daily services from Okara to Dipalpur and on to Haveli which is on the Sulemanki Bunga Hayat Pakpattan Road and seven services from Okara to Bunga Hayat via Dipalpur. Ten services are provided by the Lower Bari Co‑operative Transport Society Ltd. between Sulemanki and Pakpattan. All these services are considered sufficient to meet public demands. It is argued on behalf of the respon dents that after the integration of West Pakistan into One Unit the need for communications between regions which formerly constituted the Punjab and Bahawalpur State has become greater; Head Sulemanki constitutes the terminus of services running in these two regions thus forming a connect ing link; hence the need for additional transport facilities here. The R. T. A. also in their order stated that there is need for more transport facilities but they have not stated that the existing companies cannot be considered for meeting this need. The necessity of importing fresh blood in the transport business has been stressed by me on more than one occasion and I am inclined to agree that the Ravi Transport Company which is a new concern might receive some encouragement. This, however, should not be done at the expense of the existing companies. I would, therefore, reduce the number of permits to two and hope that the existing companies in this region will also be considered by the R. T. A. for grant of permits on this route.
K. M. A. Case remanded.