PLD 1959

P L D 1959 W (PLP)

THE PINDI GHEB TRANSPORT Co., LTD., PINDI GHEB‑Petitioner Versus R. T. A. RAWALPINDI and others‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Appellate Side No. 39 of 1956‑57, decided on 22nd May 1957, District Rawalpindi.
Honorable Judges
R. A. Muhammadi, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1959 W (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members R. A. Muhammadi, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Parties THE PINDI GHEB TRANSPORT Co., LTD., PINDI GHEB‑Petitioner Versus R. T. A. RAWALPINDI and others‑Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: R. A. Muhammadi, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (THE PINDI GHEB TRANSPORT Co., LTD., PINDI GHEB‑Petitioner Versus R. T. A. RAWALPINDI and others‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.

Headnotes / Summary

Route permit--‑Order neither specifying period of permit nor nature‑--Order to be set aside.

Judgment & Decree

Appellate Side No. 39 of 1956‑57, decided on 22nd May 1957, District Rawalpindi. Route permit--‑Order neither specifying period of permit nor nature‑--Order to be set aside. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. The order in this case is neither dated nor does 'it specify the period for which the permit was given nor does it indicate the nature of permit granted. It is hardly necessary to point out the exceedingly unsatisfactory nature of this document. There is also no document in the record received from the Authority to show how the decision taken in this matter was intimated to the two Respondents. It is a pity that the case should have been dealt with in such a superficial manner. I have no hesitation in upholding the appeal and setting aside the order of the R. T. A. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.