Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PUBLIC BUS SERVICE (REGD.) MONTGOMERY VS Respondent: THE R. T. A. MULTAN AND 8 TRANSPORT COMPANIES
P L D 1956 (Rev
P L D 1956 (Rev.) Punjab 8
Before Nasir Ahmad, Financial Commissioner
PUBLIC BUS SERVICE (REGD.) MONTGOMERY ---Appellant
Versus
THE R. T. A. MULTAN and 8 TRANSPORT COMPANIES-‑Respondents
Appeal No. 83 of 1954‑55, decided on 5th October 1955, from the order of R. T. A. Multan, dated 24th July 1955.
Motor Vehicle‑----
--New route permit‑Not to be issued to company whose members are already holding permits, in the presence of better claimants.
Permits for new routes should not be issued in favour of company which is a family concern, members of which are already running other transport and goods services, while there are other better claimants.
P L D 1955 (Rev.) Pb. 5 explained.
Sardar Muhammad 1qbal for Appellant.
Kh. Abdur Rahim and Muhammad Ismail Bhatti for Respondents.
R. T. A. Multan and Lyallpur Transport Co‑operative Society Lyallpur : ex‑parts.
ORDER
NASIR AHMAD, F. C.‑This order will dispose of the eight connected transport appeals Nos. 83 to 90 of 1954‑55.
The appellant company‑The Public Bus Service Mont gomery‑applied for a large number of permits on eight important routes like Montgomery‑Lahore, Montgomery Multan, Montgomery‑Suleimanke, Montgomery‑Lyallpur. Montgomery‑Pakpattan, etc. to the Regional Transport Authority Multan. All these applications were rejected vide their resolution No. 21 in the meeting held on 23rd and 24th July 1955. The main reason given for the rejection was that the appellant company is a family concern, members of which are already running other transport and goods services and that there were better claimants in case it was considered necessary in the public interest to increase transport facilities on these routes. The appellant's main contention before me has been that though the members of this new concern belong to the same family, other members of which are engaged in transport and goods service, that fact in itself should not constitute a bar against them from increasing their activities in case public demand for improving transport facilities on the various routes for which they had applied, did exist. In this connection I have also been referred to certain observations made by me in Rajput Bus and Transport Company v. R. T. A. Rawalpindi (P L D 1955 (Rev.) Pb. 5), I am afraid this argument which was given by me in that ruling has been misinterpreted, as the appellants do not constitute a new concern but if I might say so it is only old wine in new bottles. The majority of the appellants are already in the transport business and it was against the creation of monopolies in public utility undertakings that I have made the remarks referred to above. In this case the parties want to circumvent the general principle contained in the observation made by me by coming under a different name. In my opinion the decision which the R. T. A. have arrived at is in accord with public policy and the appeals stand rejected.
K. M. A. Appeals rejected.