P L D (Rev (PLP)
RAJPUT BUS AND TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD., SARGODHA‑Appellant Versus MUSLIM BUS SERVICE SARGODHA AND THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAJPUT BUS AND TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD., SARGODHA‑Appellant Versus MUSLIM BUS SERVICE SARGODHA AND THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (RAJPUT BUS AND TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD., SARGODHA‑Appellant Versus MUSLIM BUS SERVICE SARGODHA AND THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Abdur Rahim, for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
AKHTER HUSSAIN, F. C.‑This is an appeal by the Rajput Bus and Transport Company Ltd., Sargodha against Resolu tion No. 27 passed by the Regional Transport Authority Lahore on 25th February 1952, by which they allowed the Muslim Bus Service Sargodha to divert one of his Sargodha Girot services Jauharabad instead of via Khushab. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that at first the applications of both the companies for a permit on the newly constructed metalled road via Jauharabad were rejected by the R. T. A., Lahore but later on the Muslim Bus Company, Sargodha was allowed by the Authority to divert one of its Sargodha‑Girot services via Jauharabad instead of via Khushab. It has been argued by the learned counsel of the respondents that the appeal is not competent since no new permit was granted to the respondents and it ‑was only a diversion of the route and the R. T. A. was competent to allow it under rule 4'35 of the Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules, 1940 without inviting applications for it. I have given my full ‑con sideration to this case and consider that the permission given to the Muslim Bus Service to divert one of its services via Jauharabad instead of via Khushab does not in any way pre judice the interests of the appellant.' I, therefore, reject this appeal. Announced. A. H. Appeal rejected.