P L D 1964 W (PLP)
SOCIETY, LTD., MUSTUNG‑ — Appellant Versus R. T. A. QUETTA AND ANOTHER — ‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Niaz Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | SOCIETY, LTD., MUSTUNG‑ — Appellant Versus R. T. A. QUETTA AND ANOTHER — ‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Niaz 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 1964 W (PLP) (SOCIETY, LTD., MUSTUNG‑ — Appellant Versus R. T. A. QUETTA AND ANOTHER — ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Javed 1qbal for Appellant.
- Muhammad Ahmad Mirza for Respondent Company.
Headnotes / Summary
Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 57‑Provisions not com plied with ‑ Order granting route permit cannot be sustained. This is an appeal against the decision of R. T. A., Quetta, dated 4‑2‑63, granting two B' part permits in Quetta City and Cantt. area and one `B' part permit on Quetta‑Mustung route. I reproduce below the entire order of the R. T. A., against which the present appeal has been filed :‑ "In view of the orders of the Chairman dated 28‑1‑1963, Application dated 28‑1‑1963, received from the Chairman, Bolan Multipurpose Co‑operative Society, Ltd., Jinnah Road, Quetta for the grant of two `B' part permits to run local bus services in Quetta City and Cantt. area and one `B' part permit to run a bus service on Quetta‑Mustung route were placed before the Authority. The Authority decided that the route permits should be granted as applied for." It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the decision of the R. T. A. is' arbitrary and cannot be sustained. This order seems to have ignored section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act completely. 1 can agree that in some cases some slight irregularity, a failure to comply with some minor provision of section 57, may not vitiate the entire proceedings. But in this case section 57, has been completely ignored. The application A was never published, Objections were never invited. No oppor tunity was ever given to anyone to object to the grant of permit to the respondent, And in the circumstances, the appellant can very justifiably argue that he has been very seriously prejudiced and that if he had been given an opportunity to present his objections, he might have pursuaded the R. T. A. not to grant the permits to the respondent. I, therefore, hold that the procedure adopted ire this case, which has ignored the mandatory provisions of section 57 completely, has seriously prejudiced the appellant and hence the decision of the R. T. A. is illegal and cannot be sustained. It is unnecessary for me to go into the merits of the case. On question of law alone, the appeal cannot succeed. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the R. T. A. granting permits to the respondent. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.
Judgment & Decree
Dr. Javed 1qbal for Appellant. Muhammad Ahmad Mirza for Respondent Company. This is an appeal against the decision of R. T. A., Quetta, dated 4‑2‑63, granting two B' part permits in Quetta City and Cantt. area and one `B' part permit on Quetta‑Mustung route. I reproduce below the entire order of the R. T. A., against which the present appeal has been filed :‑ "In view of the orders of the Chairman dated 28‑1‑1963, Application dated 28‑1‑1963, received from the Chairman, Bolan Multipurpose Co‑operative Society, Ltd., Jinnah Road, Quetta for the grant of two `B' part permits to run local bus services in Quetta City and Cantt. area and one `B' part permit to run a bus service on Quetta‑Mustung route were placed before the Authority. The Authority decided that the route permits should be granted as applied for." It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the decision of the R. T. A. is' arbitrary and cannot be sustained. This order seems to have ignored section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act completely. 1 can agree that in some cases some slight irregularity, a failure to comply with some minor provision of section 57, may not vitiate the entire proceedings. But in this case section 57, has been completely ignored. The application A was never published, Objections were never invited. No oppor tunity was ever given to anyone to object to the grant of permit to the respondent, And in the circumstances, the appellant can very justifiably argue that he has been very seriously prejudiced and that if he had been given an opportunity to present his objections, he might have pursuaded the R. T. A. not to grant the permits to the respondent. I, therefore, hold that the procedure adopted ire this case, which has ignored the mandatory provisions of section 57 completely, has seriously prejudiced the appellant and hence the decision of the R. T. A. is illegal and cannot be sustained. It is unnecessary for me to go into the merits of the case. On question of law alone, the appeal cannot succeed. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the R. T. A. granting permits to the respondent. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.