P L D 1961, W (PLP)
COMPANY LTD., MULTAN‑Appellant Versus THE R. T. A. MULTAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961, W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | COMPANY LTD., MULTAN‑Appellant Versus THE R. T. A. MULTAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961, W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961, W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961, W (PLP) (COMPANY LTD., MULTAN‑Appellant Versus THE R. T. A. MULTAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 123‑Vehicle used for carrying passengers without route permit‑Case covered by S. 123 Cancellation of one of company's other route permits not justified. Kh. Abdur Rahim forAppellant. Magbul Hussain for R. T. A. Multan.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal Side No. 88 of 1959‑60, decided on 7th November 1960, District Multan. Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 123‑Vehicle used for carrying passengers without route permit‑Case covered by S. 123 Cancellation of one of company's other route permits not justified. Kh. Abdur Rahim forAppellant. Magbul Hussain for R. T. A. Multan. The brief facts of this case are that the appellants the Wahid Bus and Mailsi Transport Co., Ltd., were using a transport vehicle on Multan‑Jalalpur Pirwala route without a permit. Further the vehicle bad run short of petrol and the passengers were made to push it for a considerable distance. The Regional Transport Authority whose Secretary had found the vehicle in this condition, in their meeting held on 5‑3‑1960, cancelled one route permit of the Company on a report detailing the above facts. The main point that has been taken up before me is that a permit can be cancelled or suspended in accordance with the provisions of section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that there is no other provision for taking this action. Section 60 does not envisage cancellation of a permit if the owner of a vehicle permits it to be used without a proper permit or allows it to be used in the manner as found by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. It is admitted on behalf of Regional Transport Authority that they have not notified any specific conditions for the holding of permits so that these can only be presumed to be as given in section 59 of the Act which lays down general conditions attaching to all permits. It is further argued that the case really is covered by the provisions of section 123 of the Act, which makes it punishable for a person to drive a motor vehicle or cause or allow a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 42 i.e., without a permit. The Regional Transport Authority have not been able to controvert any of these arguments. I would, therefore, accept this appeal and direct that the cancelled route permit should ‑ be restored to the appellants. It is of course open to the Regional Transport Authority to take such other action against the petitioner as is permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, for instance a prosecution under section 123 of the Act. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.