P L D 1961 W (PLP)
THE MUSLIM BUS SERVIS REGD. SARGODHA-Appellant Versus THE R. T. A., LAHORE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | THE MUSLIM BUS SERVIS REGD. SARGODHA-Appellant Versus THE R. T. A., LAHORE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
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) (THE MUSLIM BUS SERVIS REGD. SARGODHA-Appellant Versus THE R. T. A., LAHORE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Route permit‑Compromise promoting smooth running of alternative services between rival parties‑Acceptable.
Judgment & Decree
THE R. T. A., LAHORE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents Appeal No. 134 of 1959‑60, decided on 20th December 1960, District Lahore, Route permit‑Compromise promoting smooth running of alternative services between rival parties‑Acceptable. In this appeal a compromise was arrived at between the parties by virtue of which the respondent agreed to retain the shorter part of the route, Lyallpur‑Sargodha 56 miles, and surrender the longer portion of 84 miles, Sargodha‑Mianwali, in favour of the appellant. Both are existing operators on the route and the compromise was referred to R.T.A., for their opinion. The R.T,A., finds some difficulty in accepting it because it tends to bifurcate the permit. As Secretary R. T. A. was not present on the date of hearing of the arguments, I postponed the case till today. I have now discussed it with Secretary R. T. A. He cannot explain any particular harm in accepting the compromise and eventually agreed that there was some confusion and misunderstanding, otherwise the settlement does not create any difficulty for anybody. In fact the settlement would promote the smooth running of alternative services on the route between two rival parties. Therefore, it would ultimately be in public interest to accept compromise between the parties. The appeal is accepted in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.