Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 1723 1961 SLD 1723 = 1961 PLD 9
West Pakistan
Appeal No. 64 of 1958-59, decided on 11 th February 1960, District Quetta
Presented By: M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi for Appellant.   Kh. Abdur Rahim for
Respondent No. 2.   Head Clerk for Secretary R. T. A. Quetta.

CHAMAN TRANSPORT COMPANY-Appellant  

VERSUS

  REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,   QUETTA-KALAT DIVISION, QUETTA

Law:

Section:

Route permit-Existing operator, if his previous record is satisfactory, has equal claim with new-comer, but has no preferential claim. ORDER   The petitioner Company operated Chaman-Quetta route from 1948-55, with four permits. Out of its four permits, one of its off-shoots, Mujahid & Co. secured two in 1953. Then another off-shoot of the petitioner Company, which is now respon dent No. 2 (Bogra Transport Company), got an additional service on the same route from R. T. A. in 1955. Lastly the petitioner Company lost its remaining two permits in 1959, which were 'at allotted to another Company viz., Shah Muhammad Transport Co. The petitioner did not file an appeal against the loss of these two permits. But he filed a writ petition before the High Court in respect of the additional service granted to the Bogra Transport Company in 1955. The High Court cancelled its allotment on the ground that R. T. A. had not complied with the procedure laid down in section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court did not adjudicate upon the claims of the parties and left it to R. T. A. to pass an order on merits. R. T. A. after complying with the procedure prescribed in section 57 and weigh ing the claims and counter-claims of the competitors decided on the 20th November 1958, that the Bogra Transport Company should be granted the additional service on Chaman-Quetta route for three years. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed an appeal before me. R. T. A. has furnished this Court with a very detailed report dated the 30th April 1959,offering comments on all the petitioner's pleadings. It would appear from this report that the petitioner had six very old vehicles, either 1941 or 1942 model, and persistently failed to produce certificates of their road-worthiness which were called for by R. T. A. more than once under the Rules. Further the petitioner's services completely broke down from November 1953 to January 1954. The petitioner failed to report this failure of its services. It also appears that its services even upto October 1953 were most unsatisfactory as it was prosecuted 46 times during the year. The petitioner's reply to all…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register