' Aggrieved by the order dated 4-6-1979 of the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority Sind, the petitioner has preferred this appeal under section 66 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, read with rule 96-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969. The Chairman, P. T. A., Sind has in his impugned order dated 4-6-1979 .
(1) rejected the application of the petitioner for change of route from W-4 to W-3;
(ii) declared that the vehicle No, 827-858 of the petitioner was not entitled to charge enhanced fares permitted to Mini-Buses under Government of Sind Notification dated 21-11-1975; and also
(iii) held that special enhanced fares prescribed for Mini-Buses under clause (b) of Government of Sind Notification dated 21-11-1975 were no longer in force, having not been protected in Government of Sind Notification dated 17-10-1977, which was issued in supersession of all previous notifications in that behalf.
2. Heard the petitioner at length and papers were also seen.
3. The petitioner mainly contended that under section 49 of the Ordinance, he had vested right to the grant of permit and, therefore, the Chairman, P. T. A. Could not refuse his request for change of route from W-4 to W-3. He further stand that the Chairman, P. T. A., could not bar his Vehicle No, 827-858 from charging enhanced, rates fixed for Mini-Buses as his was not the sole instance; numerous vehicles of the same make and capacity had been permitted by the R. T. A., Karachi to charge enhanced rates applicable to Mini-Buses and also passed the fitness test with their bodies painted yellow to mark them as Mini-Buses of yellow Cabs in the City.
4. The petitioner admitted that his Vehicle No, 827-858 was already plying on route No, W-4 as usual. This is also borne out by his averments in the petition of appeal. The petitioner initially applied for grant of route permit in respect of route W-4 and it was granted by P. T. A., Karachi in terms of the provisions of section 49 of the Ordinance.
5. The intention of law is to provide maximum convenience and opportunities to the entrepreneur in the field of transport by issue of permits and libitum, as also offer there by greater facilities to the commuters they sub-serve. Balance has, however, to be struck between both these ends by just and equitable interpretation and application of law. Section 49 of the Ordinance which charts mechanism for grant of stage carriage permits, makes it obligatory on the R. T. A. To issue permits to the applicants on compliance of the pre-conditions prescribed in section 48 and section 49 of the Ordinance a major policy shift in favour of enterpreneurs brought on statute. I find that this right to grant of permit and libitum the petitioner has already availed of and the Stage Carriage No, 827-858 of the petitioner in thus operating on route W-4.
6. The present request of the petitioner is clearly distinguished inasmuch as it proposes change of route from W-4 to W-3. The petitioner admitted that he had applied for change of route. Surrender by him of route permit of W-4 had been specifically for permission to changes to route W-3. It is thus obviously not a case for grant of permit envisaged by section 49 of the Ordinance which prescribes availability of vehicles also compliance of pre-conditions set forth in section 48 and section 49 of the Ordinance. In the instant case, the vehicle is not available as it is already plying on _route W-4; A the obligation placed by the Ordinance under section 49 on the R. T. A. Stands duly discharged. The petitioner cannot obviously put to use the umbrella of section 49 of the Ordinance for change of route, for after all, section 49, as it is, does not deal with requests for change of routes.
Nor by any assessm ent should it manifestly be stretched to cover that purpose, as that will tend to detract from the other avowed end, i. e. Subservice of the interests of the commuters at large, by end-up in deflection, deregulation and determent in the field of transport administration. The petitioner could not indicate any other provision of the Ordinance vesting in him the right to change the route at will. I, therefore, hold that the request of the petitioner for change of route, in the circumstances of this case, is extraneous to the provisions of the ordinance. This being the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders of the Chairman, P. T. A., Sind in this respect.
7. I have seen Government Notification dated 21-11-1975 issued under subsection (1) of section 45 of the Ordinance by which fares of stage-carriage including Mini-Buses were fixed by Government of Sind. The extract relevant to Mini-Buses in this Notification is as follows:-
(b) Mini-Buses in Karachi District (stage-carriage carrying up to 14 persons excluding Driver) Rs, 1.25 per passenger on all classified routes with fare stage of 50 paisas, 75 paisas and one rupees as may be specified by the R. T. A., Karachi.
8. The Ordinance does not define Mini-Bus as such, which is otherwise included in the term "stage carriage", vide subsection (37) section 2 of the Ordinance. These specially enhanced fares were thus clearly authorised by the Government of Sind to be charged only by such stage carriages which B carried up to 14 persons excluding driver. The Vehicle No, 827-858 of the petitioner is a 26 seater Mazda Coach. This vehicle therefore, does not come within the context of Government of Sind Notification dated 21-11-1975. The finding of the Chairman, P. T. A., Sind to the effect that the petitioner, being owner of a 26 seater Mazda, cannot avail the benefit of sub-para. (b) of Government of Sind Notification dated 21-11-1975 is correct, and is, therefore, maintained. The R. T. A.
Should however enforce the fares fixed by the Government under subsection (1) of section 45 of the Ordinance and also check the use of yellow paint by stage carriages other than Mini-Buses.
9. I have also seen Government of Sind, Notification dated 17-10-1977 issued under subsection (1) of section 45 of the Ordinance. This Notification has been issued in supercession of all previous Notification in that behalf. Inadvertently or otherwise, enhanced fares for Mini-Buses have not been prescribed in this Government Notification. In the result, provision of enhanced fares chargeable by all Mini-Buses with carrying capacity of 14 persons excluding Driver, previously authorised by Government Notification dated 21-11-1975, stood excluded and charging of enhanced fares by Mini- Buses were therefore clearly unauthorised and illegal from 17-10-1977 onwards and cannot be sustained. The finding of the Chairman, P. T. A. Sind in this respect is, therefore, correct and is hereby maintained.
10. In the circumstances the petition of appeal fails and is hereby rejected.