1969 PLP 137 (SCMR)
MESSRS TALAGANG BUS SERVICE LTD. Petitioner Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 137 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Ss. 122 (2) & 66 and Motor Vehicle Rules framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, r. 4.37‑Questions whether Rules made under any provision of repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 continue in force and whether rule 4.37 of the Rules framed under Act I V of 1939 not in conflict with S. 66 of Ordinance XIX of 1965‑Spezial Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider questions. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MESSRS TALAGANG BUS SERVICE LTD. Petitioner Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 137 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 137 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Ss. 122 (2) & 66 and Motor Vehicle Rules framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, r. 4.37‑Questions whether Rules made under any provision of repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 continue in force and whether rule 4.37 of the Rules framed under Act I V of 1939 not in conflict with S. 66 of Ordinance XIX of 1965‑Spezial Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider questions. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 137 (SCMR) (MESSRS TALAGANG BUS SERVICE LTD. Petitioner Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. H. Najafi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 7th November 1968:
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 29th February 1968, in Writ Petition No. 2016 of 1967).
Ss. 122 (2) & 66 and Motor Vehicle Rules [framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939], r. 4.37‑Questions whether Rules made under any provision of repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 continue in force and whether rule 4.37 of the Rules framed under Act I V of 1939 not in conflict with S. 66 of Ordinance XIX of 1965‑Spezial Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider questions.
Judgment & Decree
A. H. Najafi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Senior Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 7th November 1968: FAZLE‑AKBAR, C. J.‑This petition raises the question whether the petitioner's appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue (Transport), West Pakistan, Lahore, was barred by time and this question arises under the following circumstances :‑ On 31st October 1966 the Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of the petitioner‑company for permit on Talagang Mianwali via Musa Khel route. On the next day the company while filing an application for certified copy of the order also deposited stamped envelope for transmitting the certified copy as and when it was ready. The said copy, which was made ready on 5‑12‑1966, was despatched on 7‑12‑1966 and was received by the Managing Director of the company on i2‑12‑1966. Thereafter; an appeal was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue on 1‑1‑1967, but the same was dismissed as time‑barred. The High Court has held that in view of the provisions of section 66 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance the petition was time‑barred. The learned Judges further held that the provisions of sub‑rule (3) of rule 4.37 of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, which says that appeal should be filed within 30 days from the receipt of the order, would not be attracted to this case. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that under section 122(2) of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, Rules made under any of the provisions of the Act, if not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ordinance, would continue in force. He has, contended that as the provisions of sub‑rule (3) of rule 4'37 are not in conflict with section 66 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, he is entitled to rely on the above rule. In our opinion, this point requires consideration. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security‑Rs. 1,
000. Leave granted.