Law: Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939)

Section: 47, 48, 58 & 56(d)(ii)

Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), Ss. 47, 48, 58 & 56(d)(ii) - Renewal of route permits - Provincial Transport Authority resolving not to renew route permits in respect of vehicles more than 10 years old, holding this term as average life of commercial vehicles and asking applicants to approach respective Regional Transport Authorities for route permits in new village routes-Held, Transport Authority had jurisdiction to adopt impugned resolution and could take a policy without making any discrimination, to refuse permits to vehicles (stage carriages and public carriers) of any model or year of manufacture in interest of public generally.-Expression "type" used in S. 47-Includes model and year of manufacture of vehicle. It is clear from a reading of section 48 that the Transport Authority has ample power under the Motor Vehicles Act to take a policy without making any discrimination, to refuse permit to vehicles (stage carriages and public carriers) of any model or year of manufacture in the interest of the public generally as contemplated by clause (a) of section 47. It is for the Transport Authority who is responsible for permit ting public carriers and stage carriages to ply on roads, to decide in the interest of the public generally which includes the safety of human life and commodities as to what `types' of carriers and stage carriages should be allowed on the roads to carry goods and passengers and for that purpose, it is the Transport Authority alone, who is the sole judge. The expres sion `type' used in this section includes model and year of manufacture of the vehicle. Petitions Nos. 284, 285, 286, 287, 292 and 293 of 1966 rel. Date of hearing : 30th November 1967. JUDGMENT SIDDIKY, C. J.----This judgment will dispose of the above numbered two Rules as these were heard together and the points for determination are same in both the cases. In Petition No. 116 of 1966 the petitioner is Messrs Tangail General Trading and Transport Corporation Limited of Tangail and in Petition No. 117 of 1966 the petitioner is Messrs M. Arfan Khan & Co. Limited, Tangail. The respondents in both the petitions are the same, namely the Provincial…