Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HASILPUR VS Respondent: R. T. A. MULTAN
P L D 1960 W
P L D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 6
Before A. T. Naqvi, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
CHAUDHRY TRANSPORT BUS SERVICE LIMITED,
HASILPUR‑Petitioner
versus
R. T. A. MULTAN and others‑‑Respondents
Appellate Side No. 22 of 1957‑58, decided on 14th March 1959, District Multan.
(a) Route permit‑Appellants granted two permits, while formerly they had eleven‑Loss of permits due to failure on part of R. T. A. to ascertain antecedents of appellants, their financial position, capacity to put in vehicles on route and their precious record‑Order of R. T. A. set aside arid appellants granted two 'B' part permits.
(b) Route permit‑Healthy competition on monopoly routes Factor to be taken into account in the interest of public.
Ch. Dost Muhammad, Managing Director for Petitioner.
Kh. Abdur Rahim, Mir Abdullah Khan, Managing Director, Zamindara Transport Co., and S. M. Anwar for Respondents.
Syed Mahboob Shah for Dost Corporation (Respondent).
Secretary, R. T. A. Multan.
Mahmood Ali Qasuri for Burewala Bus Service Ltd.
ORDER
This order will dispose of five appeals (R. O. A. M. Nos. 22, 25, 26, 33 and 35 of 1957‑58) as the facts are identical. These appeals have arisen out of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Multan, taken in its meeting held on 3rd and 4th Octo ber 1957, granting Stage Carriage permits to the transport com panies given in para.2 below.
2. The facts of these cases are that as many as 18 applicants including the present appellants applied for the grant of Stage Carnage permits on route Chishtian to Multan via Head Pallah Vehari route. With a view to provide adequate transport facilities to the public and create healthy competition, the Authority sanctioned route permits to the following companies (respon dents) as indicated against each for a period of three years in view of their being in a sound financial position to run a show on the required standard.
(1) Abbasia Transport Company Bahawalpur 2 'B' parts.
(2) Zamindara Transport Company Khanewal 1 'B' parts.
(3) Dost Corporation Ltd., Multan 2 'B' parts.
(4) Baghdad Transport Company, Multan 2 'B' parts.
(5) Sulemania Transport Company, Multan 2 'B' parts.
No other company was considered to have any claim for the grant of permits on this route and their applications were conse quently rejected.
3. The cases of all the appellants are discussed below:‑
(i) THE CHAUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANY(R. 0. M. No. 22).
It was alleged that the Ch. Transport Company is one of the old operators and the biggest company of the former Bahawalpur State, has 21 vehicles of their own and have been granted 1 l route permits in all and have 10 spare vehicles with them; the company had the prior right to the grant of Stage Carriage permits when they were in a position to have pout in the vehicles immediately on the road to satisfy the needs of the traveling public and that they had the monopoly to operate between Chishtian and Head Pallah before integration and after that they were granted 1 I tempo rary permits between Chishtian and Head Pallah and two temporary permits between Chishtian and Vehari by the Regional Transport Authority. The opposite party and the Authority itself did not deny the above allegations. It is thus clear that the case of the appellant's company was not judicially taken notice of by the Authority, inasmuch as `they had been granted only two permits from Chishtian to Head Pallah and two from Chishtian to Vehari by the decision of the Authority impugned against. The appellant's company therefore suffered the losses of operation on the 9 permits.
The objections of the appellant's company against respondents have no force as is evident from the following facts borne out by the comments of the Authority:
(a) The Baghdad Transport Company got the permits issued by producing the Registration Certificates of the vehicles of 1954, 1955 and 1957 Models which goes to prove that the finan cial position of the company was quite good.
(b) The Sulemania. Transport Company produced the Regis tration Certificates of 1956 Model vehicles before the Authority, which shows that the financial position of the company was sufficiently sound.
(c) The fleet of the Zamindara Transport Company consisted of 1955 to 1957 Model vehicles which is an ample proof of their sound financial position.
(d) The Abbasia Transport Company produced the Registra tion Certificates of 9 vehicles of 1954 Model, which shows that the financial position of this company was quite good.
The fact however remains that the Authority failed to ascer tain the antecedents of the appellant's company their financial position, their capacity to put in vehicles on the route and their previous record. This being the case, the appeal is accepted. A and the order of the Authority is set aside, so far it affects the appellants company. They should be granted two `B' part permits on the route in question.
(ii) THE BUREWALA BUS SERVICE (R. O. A. M. No. 25).
With a view to provide adequate facilities to the public and to create healthy competition, the Authority sanctioned route permits to the new transport companies (respondents) and the question of putting the appellant's company into severe economic jeopardy do not arise, inasmuch as they are already holding 33 `B' part permits on various routes. Healthy competition on monopoly routes have always provided efficient service to the benefit of the traveling public, which is the only criteria before the Regional Transport Authority. The objections raised by the appellants' company against respondents have already been described above, and call for no further remarks. This being the case, the appeal is dismissed.
(iii) THE HARIANA TRANSPORT COMPANY (R.O.A.M.
The Managing Director of the appellant's company (Haji Rehan‑ud‑Din) was present at the time of the hearing of the case, but left the Court Room on the plea that he was going to bring his counsel. He did not turn up till the hearing of all the cases fixed for the day (13‑2‑1959) was finished. I have, however, looked into the record of the case with reference to the grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant's company. The various objections of the appellant's company against respondents have been described above. It has been urged that the Baghdad Transport Company did not apply for the route in question and yet two `B' part permits were granted to it. It has been reported by the Authority that the Baghdad Transport Company applied for the grant of Stage Carriage permits on Multan‑Chishtian via Lodhran‑Bahawal pur route, and the R. T. A. modified the route and granted 2 'B' part permits to this company on this route. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant's company was more deserv ing than the respondents for the grant of Stage Carriage permits on the route in question. There are thus no grounds for inter ference with the decision of the Authority. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.
(iv) and (v) THE MUSLIM VEHARI BUS SERVICE (R. O. A. MNos. 33 and 35).
There is nothing wrong in the order of the Authority inasmuch as the Authority decided to combine two `B' parts of the appel lant's company out of their existing permits on the two sections of their present routes via. Multan‑Vehari and Vehari‑Head Pallah and further allowed extension up to Chishtian‑so that the company could operate a direct service from Multan to Chishtian for the convenience of the traveling public. Both the appeals are therefore dismissed.
K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.