1995 PLP 2037 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SAEED‑‑‑Appellant Versus EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER, SAHIWAL and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 2037 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED‑‑‑Appellant Versus EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER, SAHIWAL and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 2037 (MLD)?
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 1995 PLP 2037 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 2037 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SAEED‑‑‑Appellant Versus EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER, SAHIWAL and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Hanif Tahir for Petitioner.
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad Gujjar for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 34, 35 & 36‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Transfer of ownership of vehicle‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Non‑availing of alternate remedy‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Petitioner who claimed that he had purchased vehicle in question, filed application for transfer of its ownership in his name and Authority accepting his application transferred ownership of vehicle accordingly‑‑‑Respondents through their application before Authority, challenged transfer of vehicle in the name of petitioner alleging that order of transfer of ownership had been procured by petitioner by practising fraud and submitting forged and fabricated documents‑‑‑Authority accepted application of respondents and set aside its earlier order of transfer of ownership of vehicle in name of petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner instead of challenging such order of Authority by filing appeal before competent Appellate Authority, challenged same by filing Constitutional petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order setting aside transfer of ownership from name of petitioner having been passed under Ss.34 & 35 of West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, petitioner had adequate remedy of filing appeal before Appellate Authority under S. 36 of West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed by petitioner directly against order of Authority concerned, was not maintainable, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
On an application filed 6y the petitioner that he had purchased Suzuki motor car bearing No. SLG‑9275, the Registration Authority under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 196$ transferred the ownership of the said vehicles in its record in the name of the petitioner in August, 1992.
2. Later on, an application was filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 stated that the order of transfer of ownership had been procured by the petitioner from respondent No.1 by practising fraud and submitting forged and fabricated documents. That application was allowed by respondent No.1 on 13‑3‑1995. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in this Constitutional petition.
3. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this petition has' been raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 who has pointed out that the petitioner has an adequate remedy of filing an appeal before the Director under section 36 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of respondent No.1 has been passed under section 12 (2) of C.P.C. and not under sections 34 and 35 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and as such, no appeal is competent before the Director.
5. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although it is correct that respondent No.1 while passing impugned order had observed that the power which he was exercising was under section 12(2) of C.P.C. but as admittedly Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the proceedings before respondent No.1, this order must be taken to have been passed under section 34 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and not under section 12(2) of C.P.C. That being so, the order was appealable under section 36 of the Act. The petitioner may even now, if so advised, avail of that remedy. This petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑2134/L Petition dismissed.