' PAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The petitioner is owner of a Minibus, a Mazda station wagon with capacity of 25 passengers which was granted a permit to ply, as a stage-carriage, on route W-4.
On 25-3-1979 the petitioner applied to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, for conversion of route from W-4 to W-3, which request was not granted by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority vide his letter dated 25-3-79 on the ground that the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority, Sind, Karachi, had allowed new vehicles Mazda 26 seaters to ply as Minibuses on the route identified by the P. T. A., Karachi, where there is acute shortage of transport and accordingly the petitioner had been granted route permit for route W-4 where there was shortage of transport and since this shortage continues, the request cannot be acceded to. The aforesaid order was challenged in appeal before the Member Board of Revenue, Sind, who by his order dated 12-4-1979 came to the conclusion that the matter had to be decided by the Chairman, P. T. A. After hearing the parties, and accordingly he remanded the case to the Chairman, for fresh decision. The appeal was then heard by the Chairman, P. T. A. Who by his order dated 4-6-79 dismissed the appeal which order was affirmed in revision by the Member, Board of Revenue, Sind. The Chairman, agreed with the petitioner that under section 49 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance. 1965, the R. T. A. Cannot but issue permit for a stage-carriage on a classified route of an applicant's choice so long as he has paid the prescribed fee and fulfilled other conditions laid down in the Ordinance and Rules framed under it but in so far as fare is concerned it had to be in accordance with the fares notified by the Government under subsection (1) of section 45 of the Ordinance. The Chairman, referred to three notifications under this section. The first notification is dated 21-11-75 fixing the fare of Minibuses as follows :- "Minibus 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 paisa. 75 paisa and one rupee as may be specified by the Regional Transport Authority, Karachi."
' The second notification dated 17-10-1977, fixed identical fares for all stage carriages without any distinction as to whether carriage was bus or a minibus in supersession of all previous notifications issued in that behalf. The third and the last notification dated 5th July 1979, is also in supersession of all the previous notifications issued in that behalf and it fixed the fares of Minibuses as follows :- "Minibuses stage-carriages with seating capacity including driver not exceeding 15).
(a) Urban Routes as may be specified by the R. T. As.
(i) for a distance upto 13 Km. (8.10 miles)-One Re.
(ii) for any distance exceeding 13 Km.-Rs, 1.50.
(b) Inter-city Routes: ' The same as for buses on inter-city routes."
' Accordingly the Chairman, came to the conclusion that though the petitioner was entitled to obtain a permi: for route W-3, she was not entitled to charge the.Fare at Rs, 1.50 which fare was under the last notification fixed for Minibuses with capacity not exceeding 15 persons, including the driver. The appeal was, therefore, rejected. The Chairman in his impugned order went on to refer to the actual prevailing situation which was that there were many Minibuses which had capacity in excess 15 persons which were being allowed to ply and charge rates for Minibuses under notification dated 5th July 1979, though that was not the intention. He further observed that there was justification for this in so far as these buses were plying on what he called, specified routes, which connected outlying areas, where there was scarcity of public transport but in so far as other routes were concerned, there was no reason why such Minibuses should be permitted to charge fare at Rs, 1.50. The Chairman, therefore, directed that that permits of Minibuses with capacity of more than 15 persons on unspecified routes should not be renewed.
2. The petitioner's grievance is that there are 26 seaters Minibuses running on route W-3, which is a unspecified route, who are allowed to charge fare at Rs, 1.50 and, therefore, the petitioner should also be allowed to run on this route and to charge this fare. The petitioner's second grievance is that though the petitioner was not allowed the change of route from route W-4 to W-3, there are at least two instances in which such change was permitted, after the similar request of the petitioner had been denied to her and in both cases they were allowed to charge fare at Rs, 1.50. The Government's case is that 26 seater Minibuses were allowed higher fare at Rs, 1.50 though under the notification dated 6th July 1979, they were not entitled to the same, in relation to certain routes which were called either specified or identified routes, which are routes connecting the city with outlying areas where there was shortage of public transport and in so far as other unspecified or unidentified routes are concerned such Minibuses were not allowed enhanced fare and those presently plying on such routes and charging higher fare, will not be permitted to do after their existing permits expire. What we are concerned with is the fare which the petitioner is entitled to charge in law that, we are afraid, as owner of a Minibus with capacity in excess of 15 persons could be no more than fares for ordinary buses under notification dated 5th July 1979. The petitioner may, however, still have a grievance, if she is discriminated, more particularly if she demonstrates that the R. T. A. Has permitted 25 seater Minibuses, in what are called specified routes, and allowed them higher fares, after the rejection of the petitioner's request to the same effect. The petitioner relies upon two such instances. The first relates to 26 seater Minibus 800-500 which was on 24-5- 79 allowed to operate on an unspecified route on higher fares. The record, however, shows that this bus was earlier on unspecified route and its existing permit was transferred to another unspecified route on 24-5-79, namely, from W-3 to W-6. The other instance referred to is of a 26 seater Minibus 804-077 which was on 26-3-79 permitted transfer of route from B to W-3 but again both these routes are unspecified routes. The learned Addl. Advocate-General stated that these cases are distinguishable inasmuch as the permit-holder had already a valid permit to run on an unspecified route which was changed to another unspecified route while in the case of petitioner the request is for transfer from a specified route to an unspecified route.
3. The result, therefore, is that the petitioner has not been able to show to us that under law she is entitled to charge fare at Rs, 1.50 for none of the notifications referred to above, enables a Minibus with a capacity in excess of 15 passengers to charge fare at Rs, 1.50.
4. Before parting we may, however, observe that the R. T. A. Seems to have made a distinction, whatever its justification may be, by drawing up specified and unspecified routes, which have also been referred to as identified and unidentified routes a copy of which was sought by the petitioner but denied to her. Petitioner was entitled to such a copy for she was affected by this distinction of routes. We, however, should not be understood as expressing any opinion as to the legality or otherwise of this distinction in routes for as aforesaid we are in the present petition only concerned with the limited question, whether or not the petitioner was entitled to charge fare at Rs, 1.50 and to that, in so far as the law is concerned, the answer is in the negative.
5. This petition is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.