MESSRS TANGAIL GENERAL TRADING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., MYMENSINGH Versus TIE PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA AND ANOTHER

1. 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.

2. 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 Transport Authority, Government of East Pakistan, Eden Buildings, Lacca arid the Member, Board of Revenue, Eden Buildings, Dacca.

3. The case of the petitioner in Petition No. 116 of 1965 is that in the later part of 1962, in response to an advertisement issued by .the respondent No. 1 inviting applications, the petitioner applied for stage carriage permits in respect of 11 of its buses including Bus No. E. B. M. 856 and E. B. M. 859 manufactured in the year 1955. Respondent No. 1 granted stage carriage permits in respect of 7 of its buses including the above‑numbered two buses for a period of 3 years. The validity of the permits for the aforementioned 2 buses were to expire respectively in January 1966 and November 1965. In September 1965 the petitioner applied for renewal of permits for the above‑mentioned 2 buses under section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act after depositing the requisite fees for the purpose. But the respondent No. 1 in its meeting held on November 17, 1965 passed a resolution purporting to refuse the renewal of the stage‑carriage permits in respect of the petitioner's aforesaid 2 buses and all other vehicles of more than 10 years old.

4. It is asserted by the petitioner that the aforesaid 2 buses are in quite good plying condition and fit for carrying passengers and since the 2 buses satisfy all the tests of fitness, certificate of fitness and registration by the Motor Vehicles Inspector as required under sections 38 and 24 of the Motor Vehicles Act were granted to these two vehicles.

5. The impugned resolution of respondent No. I was taken without giving the petitioner any opportunity to show that the buses, in question, were capable of rendering good service to the public and that the said buses satisfy all the tests of fitness as required by the Motor Vehicles Act and that there is no basis in law for the resolution. An appeal against the said decision of the respondent No. 1 was taken to respondent No. 2 under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act but the respondent No. 2 dismissed the said appeal.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not authorise respondent No. 1 to consider the year of manufacture of the vehicle or to put a condition thereto on that account before the issuance or refusal of stage‑carriage permits, and as such the said resolution is illegal, ultra vires and void. It was further contended that the respondent No. 1 bad no materials before them to pass the impugned resolution and there is no rational basis for the view that the Motor Vehicles manufactured 10 years ago are necessarily worse than vehicles manufactured two or three years later. It was also contended by the petitioner that in view of the impugned resolution the buses of pre‑1955 Model whose licences were renewed in 1964 will be able to ply up to 1967 whereas the vehicles of 1955 Model whose licences expired in 1965 will not be able to ply, which situation, according to the petitioner, is inequitable, and discriminatory and against all principles of justice and that Motor Vehicles Act has no reference to the year of manufacture of a Motor Vehicle and as such the decision of respondent No. 1 is contrary to the provision of the aforesaid Act.

7. The case "of the petitioner in Petition No. 117 of 1966 is that in the later part of 1962 in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent No. 1 inviting applications, the petitioner applied for public carriers permits in respect of 5 of its trucks including Truck Nos. E. B. M. 801 and E. B. M. 802 manufactured in the year 1952. The petitioner was granted permits by the respondent No. 1 in respect of the said two trucks for 3 years which expired in November 1965. In August 1965 the petitioner applied for renewal of the aforesaid permits under section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act after depositing the requisite fees for the purpose but the respondent No. 1 by a resolution dated 17th November 1965 refused to renew the permits in respect of the aforesaid 2 trucks and to all other trucks of more than 10 years old. Rest of the allegations in this petition are the same as in Petition No. 116 of 1966.

8. The resolution impugned in Petition No. 116 of 1966 is as follows :‑

"MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PROVINCIAL

TRANSPORT AUTHORITY HELD ON

9. WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH

10. NOVEMBER 1965

11. Item No. 6

12. The Authority considered the question of renewal of stage carriage permit of the applicants at Appendix `D'.

13. Resolved that the route permit in respect of only the vehicles of model 1956 and thereafter be renewed and that the owners of the vehicles of older models be asked to approach the respective RTAS for route permit in new village routes.

14. Further resolved that it may be widely notified that in the inter‑district routes only buses which are not more than 10 years old will be permitted to ply provided that they are on road worthy conditions. Buses more than 10 years of age will not be allowed to ply on those routes. Owners of such buses should however be given priority in issuing route permits if they can produce new model buses in time."

15. In Petition No. 117 of 1966 the resolution impugned is as follows :‑

"MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PROVINCIAL

TRANSPORT AUTHORITY HELD ON

16. WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH

17. NOVEMBER 1965

18. Item No. 11

(b) The Authority considered the question of renewal of stage carriage permit of the applicants at appendix `G'.

19. Resolved that in respect of vehicles more than 10 years' old which is the average life of commercial vehicles, the route permits shall not be renewed and that the applicants be asked to A approach the respective RTAS for route permit in new village routes."

20. The respondents have filed affidavit‑in‑opposition in both the Rules. It is the case of the respondents that the Motor Vehicles Act does authorise the Provincial Transport Authority to grant or to refuse permits to any stage carriages or public carriers of any model or make in the interest of the public generally and that the resolutions adopted by the Provincial Transport Authority on November 17, 1965 do not in any way infringe any right of the petitioners conferred by law and refusal to grant permits to stage carriages or public carriers of the petitioners in these two cases are in any way discriminatory. They have denied the assertion of the petitioners that the stage carriages or public carriers, in question, are suitable for plying in inter‑district routes. It has further been contended by the respondents that the certificate of route worthiness granted to the vehicles in question, by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles does not restrict or limit the authority of the Provincial Transport Authority to refuse permits to the vehicles for plying in inter‑district routes. It was further contended by the respondents that the refusal by the Provincial Transport Authority to grant permits to vehicles in question has been made on a principle and on a rational basis applicable to all vehicles of all owners of vehicles of particular model and age and therefore is not hit by the principles of discriminatory treatment.

21. A similar point arose for consideration of this Court in Petitions Nos. 284, 285, 286, 287, 292 and 293 of 1966 and a Division Bench of this Court of which I was a member held that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 does authorise the Transport Authority to refuse permits to any stage carriage or public carrier of a particular model or a vehicle manufactured in a particular year. The point for our consideration in the present two applications is fully coveted by the decision given in the aforementioned petitions.

22. Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act mentions the matters which must be taken into consideration by the Transport Authority while granting or refusing a stage carriage permit. Of the several matters mentioned in the said subsection `the interest of the public generally' mentioned in clause (a) seems to be the prime consideration for the Transport Authority in the matter of its decision to grant or refuse a permit. Clause (a) of section 48 specifically empowers the Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriage or stage carriages of any specified type. The phrase `stage carriage of any specified type' occurring in section 48(a), in our opinion, includes the model or the year of manufacture of motor vehicle. In our opinion, the meaning of the word `limit' with which clause (a) begins is `to restrict' in the context in which it has been used in the Statute. It is, therefore, 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.

23. `Section 56(d)(ii) again empowers the Transport Authority to attach to a permit such conditions as it may think fit and necessary. This power, too in our opinion is in the widest possible term. It is for the Transport Authority who is responsible for permitting 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 C on the roads to carry goods and passengers and for that purpose, it is the Transport Authority alone, who is the sole Judge.' The expression `type' used in this section includes in our opinion model and year of manufacture of the vehicle.

24. Authority mentioned in sections 47, 48 and 56 is the Regional Transport Authority. A question, therefore, may arise as to whether the provisions of these three sections will be available to the Provincial Transport Authority whose resolutions are impugned in these two petitions. It is no one's case that the powers contemplated in sections 47, 48 and 56 are not available to the Provincial Transport Authority. The petitioners in both the petitions applied to the Provincial Transport Authority for permit in the inter‑district routes, as the route lying in more than one district which comes under the jurisdiction of different Regional Transport Authority is controlled by the Provincial Transport Authority in regard to the permits to both the stage carriages and public carriers.

25. Section 44(3)(b) speaks of the duties that the Provincial Transport Authority may perform in regard to a route common to two or more regions. The route for which permits were applied for by the petitioners in these two applications lay within the jurisdiction of two Transport Authorities, namely, Dacca and Mymensingh. For these reasons we have no hesitation to say that the provisions of sections 47, 48 and 56 are available to the Provincial Transport Authority in the discharge of their duty to grant or refuse permit to a stage carriage or a public carrier in a route common to two or more regions.

26. For the reasons stated above we find no want of jurisdiction in the Provincial Transport Authority to have adopted the resolutions in question, on the 17th November 1965 by which the four vehicles of the two petitioners before us are said to be affected.

27. Since the impugned resolutions have not been adopted only in regard to the vehicles of the two petitioners before us and/or with regard to the four vehicles involved but affect all the vehicles of all owners of the age of 10 years or more we find no ground to hold that the two resolutions are in any way discriminatory and/or that the two petitioners before us have been treated in a discriminatory manner or that there is no rational basis behind the two resolutions.

28. The road worthiness certificate granted to the vehicles in question by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles has got nothing to do with the powers of Transport Authority exercisable under sections 47, 48 and 56 and as such there seems to be no substance in the contention of the petitioners on this score.

29. The petitioners have not been totally deprived of their earning on the vehicles concerned, as from the impugned resolutions it is clear that the petitioners have been directed to obtain route permits from the Regional Transport Authorities for new village routes.

30. The rights of the petitioners to apply for permit for stage carriages and public carriers in the inter‑district route for which the four vehicles in question held, permit has not been taken away permanently as the Provincial Transport Authority has clearly indicated in its resolutions that the petitioners will be given priority for these inter‑district route if they can produce new model stage carriages or public carriers in time.

31. Apart from the fact that Fundamental Right No. 8 guaranteed by the constitution is not available to the petitioners, in view of the suspension of the said right with effect from the 6th September 1965, on merits also there is no substance in any of the two petitions.

32. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any substance in the petitions and the Rules issued thereupon are hereby discharged without any order as to costs.

33. ABDUL HAKIM, J. ----I agree.

34. S. A. H. Rules discharged.