P (PLP)
MURREE HILL TRANSPORT Ltd.‑‑‑Appellant Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAWALPINDI‑Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Akhter Husain, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | MURREE HILL TRANSPORT Ltd.‑‑‑Appellant Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAWALPINDI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Akhter Husain, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (MURREE HILL TRANSPORT Ltd.‑‑‑Appellant Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAWALPINDI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mahmud Ali, for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939)‑Ss.44 (1) and 56‑Permits to be granted to Company. and not to individuals‑Transport Authority can restrict number of Permits on particular route: The permits are not granted to individual share‑holders but to, the Company as a whole. The apportionment of permits between" the evacuees and non‑evacuees and to take the same away from the Company is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. All that the Regional Transport Authority can do is to restrict the number of permits on a particular route in the interest of the public generally. M. A. Minto, for Pindi Murree Transport Company Ltd., & Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi.
Judgment & Decree
The permits are not granted to individual share‑holders but to, the Company as a whole. The apportionment of permits between" the evacuees and non‑evacuees and to take the same away from the Company is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. All that the Regional Transport Authority can do is to restrict the number of permits on a particular route in the interest of the public generally. Mahmud Ali, for Appellant. M. A. Minto, for Pindi Murree Transport Company Ltd., & Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi. ORDER.‑This order disposes of two appeals cited above against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, dated the 29th July 1950, in which that Authority did not consider it advisable to allot the appellants the additional stage and contract carriage permits taken away from them for the rehabilitation of refugees against the shares owned by non‑Muslim evacuees. The Authority however accepted the request of the appellants that it should be clearly placed on record that at the time of assessment of compensation that factor would be given due regard that their request for allotment of those permits had been rejected. It will be observed that the permits are not granted to individual share‑holders but to the Company as a whole. The apportionment of permits between the evacuees and non‑evacuees and to take the same away from the Company is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. All that the Regional Transport Authority can do is to restrict the number of permits on a particular route in the interest of the public generally. The fact that the Authority intended to form a third company for plying stage carriages on the Rawalpindi Murree‑Kohala route shows that there is no justification for restricting the number of route permits in the present case. The Regional Transport Authority has nothing to do with allocation of shares or allotment of permits held by a Limited Company to refugees or evacuees. The premises upon which the Authority has based its decision are therefore wrong. No such reason as is given by the Authority is recognised either b5 the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Both the appeals are therefore accepted and the order appealed against set aside. The permits origi nally held by the appellant Companies should be restored to them. Announced. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.