1996 PLP 1008 (SCMR)
Haji JUMMA and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUR RASHEED and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1008 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar, Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | Haji JUMMA and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUR RASHEED and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1008 (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 1996 PLP 1008 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar, Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1008 (SCMR) (Haji JUMMA and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUR RASHEED and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tahir Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehta K.N. Kohli, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 1994.
- Tahir Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehta K.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14‑4‑1994 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in C.P. No. 539/1993). ‑‑‑S. 49‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑ Route permit for plying buses‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether Authority had not given opportunity of hearing to petitioner while granting route permit to respondent; whether route permit was granted by drawing lots in violation of West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965; and whether High Court had not properly interpreted the words "stage carriage and contract carriage".
Judgment & Decree
MIR. HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14-4-1994 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta.
2. The petitioners are holding route permits for plying buses Quetta City Cantonment. Respondent Abdur Rasheed was also granted route permit for the same route. It was contended by Mr.Tahir Muhammad Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Transport Authority without publication or publicity or giving hearing to the petitioners had granted route permit to respondent Abdur Rasheed. He challenged the same in appeal before the Chairman, Transport Authority, Quetta, which was rejected. The petitioners challenged the orders of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority in Writ Petition before the High Court of Balochistan. Vide judgment dated 14-4-1994 the writ petition was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Quetta, had not given opportunity of hearing while granting route permit to respondent Abdur Rasheed. He further contended that route permit was granted to Abdur Rasheed by drawing lots in violation of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. It was further contended that the learned Judges of the High Court had not properly interpreted the word "stage carriage and contract carriage". The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. A.A./J-126/S Leave granted.