P L D 1961 W (PLP)
RAVI TRANSPORT COMPANY‑Appellant Versus P. T. A. LAHORE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | RAVI TRANSPORT COMPANY‑Appellant Versus P. T. A. LAHORE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 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 1961 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. W. Abbasi, 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 1961 W (PLP) (RAVI TRANSPORT COMPANY‑Appellant Versus P. T. A. LAHORE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Salim for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Route permit‑One "only" permit to new comer‑Uneconomic unit‑Principle not applicable in case of person having permits on various routes. Secretary P. T. A.
Judgment & Decree
R. O. A. M. No. 13 of 1960‑61, decided on 26th November 1960, District Lahore. Route permit‑One "only" permit to new comer‑Uneconomic unit‑Principle not applicable in case of person having permits on various routes. Muhammad Salim for Appellant. Secretary P. T. A. The appellant Company applied for four B Part permits on the route Chunian‑Dipalpur via Hujra. The P. T. A., granted them only one permit, distributing the remainder to other operators. The main ground urged in appeal is that while the appellant Company had two spare vehicles of recent make, they were only given one permit which is an uneconomic unit. The appellant is a large‑scale operator having 9 other permits on various routes and a fleet of about 13 vehicles. So far, therefore, as their spare vehicles are concerned, they can certainly be put to good use and cannot be urged as a ground for grant of more permits. In this connection reliance is placed on an order of the Board dated 13‑8‑1959 in Appeal No. 42 of 1956‑57 (West Unit Transport Service v. R. T. A.) in which the learned Member held that "two permits were the minimum economic unit for an independent operator". Reference was made to this view in another case recently decided by anther Member, (R. O. A. M. No. 161. of 1958‑59) in which the learned Member agreed with this view as a broad proposition. It is obvious that this rule o thumb can be applied only to a new operator. But if an operator is not a new comer into the field and has a fair volume of other transport service, it would not be desirable to insist that it must have more than one permit on the particular route for which it has applied. It is the overall picture of its transport business and its capacity that has to be taken into consideration in determining what would be an economic unit for it. Where, oft course, the petitioner has no other transport service to its credit one permit is certainly an uneconomic unit likely to lead to abuses and malpractices. Going by these considerations I do not think that the appel lant has a good case to urge. The appeal is dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.