P L D 1960 W (PLP)
Appellant Versus THE R. T. A. QUETTA‑KALAT, QUETTA.
| Citation | P L D 1960 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | Appellant Versus THE R. T. A. QUETTA‑KALAT, QUETTA. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1960 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 1960 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. W. Abbasi, 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 1960 W (PLP) (Appellant Versus THE R. T. A. QUETTA‑KALAT, QUETTA.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Route permit‑‑New service advertised by R. T. A.‑Subse quent order that new service was not required‑Not open to challenge in appeal.
Judgment & Decree
THE R. T. A. QUETTA‑KALAT, QUETTA. Respondent Appeal No. 77 of 1958‑59, decided on 3rd February 1960, District Quetta. Route permit‑‑New service advertised by R. T. A.‑Subse quent order that new service was not required‑Not open to challenge in appeal. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. This is an appeal against an order of R. T. A. Quetta, passed at its meeting held on 20‑11‑1958, refusing to grant a stage carriage permit to the appellant‑company on Quetta Gangalzai via Yaroo and Quetta‑Gulistan via Yaroo route. In May 1958, the appellant‑company was granted a stage carriage permit on the Gangalzai Quetta via Pishin‑Qilla Abdullah route. This permit, however, required that the appellant company should provide a vehicle of the required type within one month failing which the permit would stand cancelled. The appellant defaulted and the permit was revoked. The appellant claims to have procured the requisite vehicle by the end of August. After this revocation, the service was advertised. The appellant applied for it along with other companies. The R. T. A. decided at A its meeting held on 30‑8‑19,58 that this new service was not required and, therefore, rejected all the applications received in response to its advertisement. In appeal before me it has been argued that the R. T. A. after having advertised the service had no choice but to select one of the applicants and that when it dropped the very idea of granting an additional service its order amounted to reviewing its own previous order, while there is no provision for review in the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder passed on the 13th August 1959, was illegal. I am afraid I cannot accept this far‑fetched reason ing. The R. T. A. has given reasons in its order for arriving A at the decision that the additional service was not required and its discretion cannot be challenged. It would, therefore, appear that R. T. A's both decisions were correct namely re vocation of the permit formerly granted to the appellant‑company on this route and its subsequent order not to creation additional service on the route. The appeal has no force and is dismissed. K.M. A. Appeal dismissed.