P L D 1961 W (PLP)
COMPANY LTD., JHELUM‑Petitioner Versus THB R. T. A., RAWALPINDI, AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | COMPANY LTD., JHELUM‑Petitioner Versus THB R. T. A., RAWALPINDI, 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 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 1961 W (PLP) (COMPANY LTD., JHELUM‑Petitioner Versus THB R. T. A., RAWALPINDI, AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Munir Ahmad for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
versus THB R. T. A., RAWALPINDI, AND ANOTHER‑Respondents Review No. 21 of 1959‑60, decided on 16th July 1960, District Rawalpindi. Review‑No new material‑Petition not competent. Munir Ahmad for Petitioner. The facts relating to this petition have been recorded in the well considered and detailed order passed by Mr. Ahsan‑ud‑Din in R. O. A. M. No. 44 of 1959‑60, dated 18‑5‑1960. The peti tioner against whom the appeal was accepted has now sought for a review of the above‑mentioned order on the ground that its acceptance was based on a report by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi which was to the effect that the appellant company was not working efficiently. This report, it is sought to be considered a new matter and for that reason a notice of it should have been given to the appellant company in accordance with the provisions of section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel has not noted the observa tions made by the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi on the petitioner's application for another route Chao Saidan Shah via Dumman and Dhok Tallian in which the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi had definitely observed that the appellant company was not fit to run bus services efficiently for various reasons. My learned predecessor merely wanted the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi to reconcile these two conflicting reports so that no new material had come on the record which could have justified the attraction of section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I would, therefore, hold that under the existing provisions of the Board of Revenue Act this review is not tenable and reject the petition. K. M. A. Petition rejected.