' Petitioners Nos.2 to 4 are carrying on their business as transporters while petitioner No,1 is a society formed by the transporters to represent their interest. According to section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, no transport vehicle can be used or driven without a permit issued by a Regional or Provincial ' Transport Authority. The grant of these permits which are known as Stage Carriage Permits is regulated by the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 framed thereunder.
2. By a memorandum dated 30th July, 1990, (Annexure A to this petition), the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Transport Department, Lahore, issued instructions to all Regional Transport Authorities in Punjab that the penalty provided for renewal of permits by sub-rule 2 of rule 85 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, be levied even on the applications for fresh permits, if previously a permit stood granted for the vehicle in question.
3. The vires of this memorandum has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that rule 85(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 has no applicability to the grant of fresh permits and cannot be applied to the first grant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, has urged that the grant of fresh permit is different from renewal of an old permit ra and the two concepts cannot be equated.
The learned counsel conceded that if the applicant for the grant of the fresh permit is the same and the application is in repect of the same route and the same vehicle, the respondent can justifiably consider it to be an application for renewal. He, however, contended that if the application is with respect to a different route and by a different individual, there was no warrant for treating such application to be that of renewal.
5. Mr. Muhammad Rasheed Malik, learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the respondents were justified in instructing the Regional Authorities to treat any subsequent application made in respect of vehicle to which a permit had already been granted as a renewal.
According to the learned counsel, these directions have been issued with a view to frustrate the device being resorted to by the transporters, for avoiding the payment of penalty under rule 85(2) by applying for fresh permit rather than for its renewal.
6. The question which arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether the grant of a fresh permit to a different applicant in respect of a different route, can be considered to be a renewal of the previous permit, so as to attract the applicability of sub-rule (2) of rule 85.
7. Before considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel, it is necessary to make reference to sub-rule (2) of rule 85 which reads as under:- "85. Renewal of permits.---(1) xxxxxxxxx (2) A Regional Transport Authority may at its discretion entertain an application for renewal preferred after the prescribed date, in which case a progressively increasing fee at the rate of Rs, 50 for each month or part of a month, the application is due, shall be charged. An application made after the original permit has expired will be treated on the same basis."
This sub-rule, by its very wording applies to renewals and not grant of fresh permits. The grant of a fresh permit and renewal have different connotations. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, at page 1165 'renew' means:- "To make new again, to restore to freshness, to make new spiritually, to regenerate, to begin again, to recommence, to resume, to restore to existence, to revive, to re-establish, to recreate, to replace, to grant or obtain an extension of. To 'renew' a contract means to begin again or continue in force the old contract,"
' Similarly, according to Ballentine's Law Dictionary, renewal of a contract means the extension or continuation of a contract for an additional term following the expiration of the contract according to its terms. Considered in the light of these definitions, it becomes obvious that 'renewal' connotes the continuance in force of a previously issued licence.
8. A review of various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance and the rules shows that the grant of a fresh permit and the renewal of a permit have been separately catered for and dealt with. As regards the initial grant, the relevant provisions are to be found in sections 48, 49, 50 and 59 of the Ordinance, while renewal is governed by section 60 ibid. Similarly, in the rules also two matters are separately dealt with. Rule 64 provides the forum to which the application for grant of permit is to be made and the fee to be paid. Renewal, however, is dealt with by rule 85. Even the procedure as prescribed for grant and renewal. Of a permit is different. Separate provisions have also been made for filing appeals against the order refusing to grant the permit and the refusal to renew it. It is thus evident that there is no justification for treating an application for fresh permit at par with renewal of old permit.
9. In V.C.K. Bus Service Ltd. v. The Regional Transport Authority Coimbatore PLD 1957 SC (India) 411, while drawing distinction between the grain and renewal of permit, it was observed that:- "A reading of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and of the rules made thereunder leads indubitably to the conclusion that a renewal is a continuation of the permit previously granted. The fact that the grant of renewal is not a matter of course, or that it is open to the authorities to impose fresh conditions at the time of renewal does not, when the permit is in fact renewed, alter its character as a renewal."
10. As already observed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded the right of the department to charge penalty in accordance with rule 85(2) On application by the same person who holds the previous permit for the same route. But, if the applicant is different and the application is also for a different route, there appears to be no rational basis for treating the application as one for renewal of the old permit.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that prior to 1 July. 1990, the department itself was considering such applications as those for grant of fresh permits and not renewal. Mr. Muhammad Rasheed Malik did not deny this assertion but states that as the process was being misused, it was decided by the department to apply rule 85(2) to the cases of fresh grant also, but no rational basis for doing so has been disclosed.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent next relied upon rule 81 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, to contend that the intention of the rule-framer was that the applications subsequent to the initial grant should be considered as those for renewal. There is nothing in this rule which advances the argument of the learned counsel. It merely requires that when a fresh application is made, all route permits should be surrendered.
13. There can be no doubt that rule 85 by itself is a penal provision and is, therefore, to be construed strictly. Consequently, even if, two views were possible, one in favour of the subject has to be adopted. For this reason also, the interpretation being placed upon rule 85(2) by the respondent cannot be accepted.
' As a result of what has been said above, this petition succeeds and is accepted. The impugned memorandum to the extent it directs that the application for grant of a fresh permit be treated as one for renewal, even if the applicant is different and the application is for a different route, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no orders as to costs.