P L D 1959 (W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑Petitioners Versus R. T. A. LAHORE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. T. Naqvi, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑Petitioners Versus R. T. A. LAHORE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 (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 1959 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. T. Naqvi, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 (W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑Petitioners Versus R. T. A. LAHORE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Abdur Rahim for Petitioners.
- Secretary, R. T. A. Lahore for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 59‑Transfer of permit Purely discretionary matter resting with R. T. A.‑Order refusing transfer‑‑Not appealable. (b) Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, r. 4.33 (3)‑R. T. A. not bound to hear parties.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal has been preferred against the decision of the R. T. A., Lahore, taken in its meeting held on the 7th July 1958, refusing to allow the transfer of the public carrier permit held by Muhammad Hussain appellant No. 1 in favour of Muhammad Tuffail, appellant No. 2.
2. Briefly the facts of this case are that Muhammad Hussain, appellant No. 1, is the holder of a public carrier permit No. 57/48. which is covered by Vehicle No. P B T‑1932. Muhammad Hussain, Appellant No. 1, is alleged to have sold the said vehicle in favour of Muhammad Tufail, Appellant No. 2, and applied to the Authority for permission to transfer the public carrier permit accordingly. The Authority in its meeting held on the 7th July 1958, decided that any one who purchases a public carrier vehicle from another permit‑holder should make fresh application to the Regional Transport Authority for the issue of a permit. Invariably such permits will be granted, The three transferees in statement `A' will be directed accordingly. The permit pertaining to that particular vehicle which has been sold will be cancelled.
3. Both Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Tuffail the appellants preferred this appeal before the Board of Revenue on the main ground that the authority has cancelled the permit of Appellant No. 1, whereas a careful reading of the order appeal ed against will show that the Authority has not cancelled the permit but has resolved that the permits which have been sold will be cancelled and that the cancellation of a permit is conditional and is subject to its being sold. This contention was conceded by the Secretary, R. T. A., Lahore, during the course of arguments. It seems that the transfers were refused in view of the decision of the Authority with a direction that the transferee should apply for a fresh permit in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the transferer who is obviously no longer Interested should not be allowed to trade in this business. Moreover transfer of a permit under section 59 is a purely discretionary matter resting A with the R. T. A., whose order is final and no appeal lies from refusal to transfer. This view was held in P L D 1955 Pb. (Rev.)
37. The contention of the appellants that they were not heard has no legal force inasmuch as under sub‑rule 3 of rule 4.33 it is not obligatory on the part of the R. T. A., to hear the parties in such cases.
4. In view of the aforementioned observations the appeal must fail and is consequently filed. Parties should be informed accordingly.' K. M. A Appeal dismissed.