P L D 1963 W (PLP)
SHORKOT TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD.‑Appellant Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1963 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHORKOT TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD.‑Appellant Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1963 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 1963 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1963 W (PLP) (SHORKOT TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD.‑Appellant Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
r. 4.10 (1)‑Company ill possession of vehicles‑R. 4.10 (1) not applicable‑R. T. A. and not Secretary entitled to revoke sanction of route permit.
Judgment & Decree
Jhang‑Machiwala. 18 Miles. Jhang 18 Hazari 12 Miles. Jhang Chand Bharwar 11 Miles.
2. The counsel for the appellant company stated that there was considerable over‑work due to the new policy adopted by the R. T. A. Lahore and the extremely liberal grants of route permits. As a result on 12th April 1962, he applied for implementation of the permits. This was refused by the then Secretary without the authority of the R. T. A.
3. The Secretary R. T. A., Lahore has cited Rule 4. (0 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules as justification for his refusal to the issue of permits, since the appellant had not applied with the Registration Books within one month. The rule, however, provides that‑ "where the registration mark of the vehicle is to be entered on the permit and the applicant is not on the date of the application in possession of the vehicle, duly registered, then the applicant shall within one month of the sanction of the application by the R. T. A., or such longer period as the R. T. A. may specify, produce the certificate of Registration of the vehicle before that Authority in order that particulars of the Registration mark may be entered in the permit."
4. It is not denied that in this case the appellant Company has 21 vehicles against 12 B Parts sanctioned, out of which 6 B Parts are under appeal. The appellants admittedly were in possession of the vehicles and, therefore, the contingency envisaged under Rule 4.10(1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules allowing them one month within which to produce the certificate of Registration does not arise. Moreover, under Rule 4.10 (2) it is the R. T. A., which can revoke its sanction of the route permit and not the Secretary, R. T. A.
5. Under these circumstances and since the routes are short and intended to serve the requirements of the public near the Jhang headquarters' town and there has been no appeal against them, I see no reason why the route permits should not be issued to the appellant Company.
6. Accordingly I accept the appeal, set aside the order of the Secretary, R. T. A., and direct that the route permits be granted to the appellant Company in accordance with the grant made to them, by the R. T. A. Lahore. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.