P L D (Rev (PLP)
OKARA BUS SERVICE LTD.-Petitioner Versus (1) R. T. A. MULTAN (2) The Lower Bari Transport
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hussain, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | OKARA BUS SERVICE LTD.-Petitioner Versus (1) R. T. A. MULTAN (2) The Lower Bari Transport |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Akhtar Hussain, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (OKARA BUS SERVICE LTD.-Petitioner Versus (1) R. T. A. MULTAN (2) The Lower Bari Transport). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Shafi, for Appellant.
- Kh. Abdur Rahim, for Respondent No. 2.
Headnotes / Summary
Motor Vehicle-Route permit-Conversion of, to another route partly plied by another company-Not correct on principle where there is no corresponding benefit to public-Such conversion allowed temporarily does not create rights on permanent basis. It is not correct in principle to allow encroachments on the rights of other companies where there is no corresponding benefit to the travelling public. The grant of a temporary permit allowing conversion of a route by the Regional Transport Authority creates no right in favour of the grantee.
Judgment & Decree
AKHTAR HUSSAIN, F. C.
The Okara Bus Service are running services from Okara to Haveli by a route a part of which is un-mettaled. They applied for conversion of their one service from Okara to Haveli via Bangahayat. This was a larger route but all metalled. The Respondent No. 2 Company which is running services on a route of which Bangahayat to Haveli is a part objected to this conversion and the Regional Transport Authority refused to allow it. The appellant Company's main ground of appeal is that the authority had allowed them temporary conversion on the recommendation of the D. C. as there was a public demand for this and the authority should not have refused the conversion on a permanent basis. The authority has rightly explained that the grant of temporary permit, created no rights and that after hearing the respondent company which is interested in the Bangahayat A Haveli portion of the route they came to the conclusion that if conversion was allowed the respondent company would be adversely affected. I think it is not correct in principle to allow encroachments on the rights of other companies where there is no corres ponding benefit to the travelling public. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the authority and reject the appeal. A. H. Appeal rejected.