By this order I shall also dispose of the connected Writ Petition No. 1471 of 1976.
2. Briefly the facts of this case are that respondent No. 2 applied under rule 179 of the Motor Vehicles Rules for the approval of a colour scheme with regard to the buses being plied by him on Lyallpur, Mandi Yazman route via Sammundri, Rajana, Kamalia, Chicha Watni, Khanewal, Multan and Bahawalpur.
3. The matter came up before the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 24th of May 1976. It was stated before the R. T. A. That no other person had applied for the approval of similar colour as applied for by the respondent No. 2. Only one objector namely, Muhammad Anwar Khan through whom Petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1471 of 1976 has .Come up to this Court, appeared on behalf of Awan United Group, General Bus Stand, Lyallpur. He challenged the entitlement of respondent No. 2 to apply under 179, as it was neither a limited company nor operated a fleet of buses. In answer to a query raised by the Chairman, he stated that R. T. A. Sargodha had not approved a similar colour scheme submitted by the Awan United Group with which he was associated.
4. Ch. Niaz Ahmad who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 categorically refuted the objections. He stated that respondent No. 2 was a limited company and had one route permit on Lyallpur-Yazman route. The R. T. A. After considering the case decided to approve the. Colour scheme submitted by respondent No. 2 in respect of the fleet of transport vehicles being operated by it. It was further directed that the particular colour scheme shall be entered in the permits of respondent No. 2 and no other company or society would be entitled to ply its vehicles with the approved colour scheme. Subsequently, individual notices were issued on all the petitioners in both the writ petitions, directing them to change the colour of their buses within 15 days at the pain of legal action. The petitioners challenged those notices in this Court, through the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 at the outset raised a preliminary objection that as none of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1471 of 1976 was operating on the route in question at present, their petition had become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not controvert this allegation as none of his clients were present at that time and submitted that he shall place on record an affidavit of the petitioners with regard to the allegations, by the 4th instant. He, however, submitted only one affidavit on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2989 of 1976, saying that neither the petitioner in that case had stopped the operation nor had they surrendered the permit. The other affidavit was filed on 7th showing that only 8 vehicles were plying on the route under consideration. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2. The position that emerges from these affidavits is that some of the petitioners are aggrieved persons even now and so this petition must be decided on merits.
6. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in order to qualify for an order being made in favour of. An applicant under rule 179, he must prove that he was a company registered under the Companies Act as a co-operative society and must be operating a fleet of vehicles. It was contended that respondent No. 2 had none of these qualifications and therefore, the R. T. A. Had no power to approve his colour scheme so as to deprive the other operators of the benefit of that colour scheme. It was stated that colour scheme which respondent No. 2 had got approved was being used by all the transporters since long and that as it was so familiar with the travelling public and had acquired such a prestige about security and safety that it would be detrimental to their interest to adopt a different colour scheme at this stage.
7. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent on the other hand submitted that his client is a limited company and referred to the heading of the writ petition to support his point. He also referred to a list of vehicles (Annex : RJ2 attached to his written statement) to show that at least 60 vehicles were being operated under his control on the route in question. In addition it was submitted that respondent No. 2 held two permits in its own name and therefore, fulfilled all the necessary qualifications for an order under rule 179. The learned counsel also drew my attention to section 61(3)(a) where it is provided that all vehicles operated under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance must comply with the requirements of Chapter VI and the rules made thereunder. Section 74(2)(o), Chapter VI empowers the Government to make rules prohibiting or requiring the painting in particular colours of motor vehicles of particular description or for particular purposes or in particular areas. Section 69(2)(xvi) also refers to similar provisions.
8. Rule 179 which directly applies to this case reads as under : "Painting of public service vehicles -Every company or co-operative society which operates a fleet of transport vehicles shall paint such vehicles according ~ to the pattern and a particular colour scheme approved and registered beforehand by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The particulars of the colour scheme shall be entered in the permits and no other company or society shall be entitled to paint its vehicles according to a colour scheme adopted by the Road Transport Corporation, another company or society in the Province."
A close reading of all the provisions alongwith rule 179 shows that R. T. A. Is empowered to approve a particular scheme for a company or a co-operative society. The company according to section 2(24) would be a limited company. The respondent No. 2 fulfils this qualification as it is a limited company. It also has two permits. In the circumstances, it could apply for the approval of the scheme and the same has been rightly allowed.
9. The contention of the learned counsel that even the approval of a particular colour in favour of a company or society would not debar him from using the same appears to be 'absolutely baseless.
Both in view of the contents of rule 179 and other provisions, referred to above, the R. T. A. Can approve colour scheme of one and prohibit others from using it. Further, there will be no logic or wisdom in approving a particular colour scheme for a company or society if the same is to be used by other.
10. The only view that can be taken from the provisions noted above, is that though an individual transport operator or a firm cannot use the approved colour scheme of a company or a society, yet it cannot be prevented from adopting any other colour scheme. However, as the point in this case is with regard to the colour scheme approved in favour of respondent No. 2, I do not think any grievance can be made by the petitioners who are individual transporters. They may resort to any other colour scheme but certainly can be prevented from using the one approved in favour of respondent No. 2.
For the reasons given above; I do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed with costs.