P L D 1961 W (PLP)
THE JAVED TRANSPORT SERVICE‑Appellant Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | . Nasir Ahmed, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | THE JAVED TRANSPORT SERVICE‑Appellant Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE |
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: . Nasir Ahmed, 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 JAVED TRANSPORT SERVICE‑Appellant Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Salamatullah for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Route permit‑Driver plying vehicle without uniform anti driving license-Breach of Condition No. 23, Part (A) of permit issued to company‑Route permit suspended for one month Suspension not interfered with in appeal. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Lahore.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent Appellate a Side No. 61 l$3 of 1960‑61, decided on ' 27th February 1961, District Lahore. Route permit‑Driver plying vehicle without uniform anti driving license-Breach of Condition No. 23, Part (A) of permit issued to company‑Route permit suspended for one month Suspension not interfered with in appeal. Salamatullah for Appellant. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Lahore. The Regional Transport Authority, Lahore in their meeting held on 17th October 1960, suspended the route permit of the appellant company for a period of one month on the ground that the driver of one of their vehicles was found plying the vehicle without a uniform and a driving license. This was con sidered a breach of Condition No. 23 Part (A) of the permit issued to the appellant and thus attracted the provisions of section 60 (bj of the Motor 'Vehicles Act. It is contended on behalf of the 'appellant that there is no such condition in the actual permit issued to the appellant. Unfortunately the permit Which is n the possession of the appellant himself has not been produced before me and I can only rely on the printed form which the Regional Transport Authority have produced and Which it is stated is used in every case. Condition 23 of the printed form has already been referred to and a breach of that bon edition would; make the permit liable to suspension or can cellation for such period as the Authority may, decide. In this particular case the suspension is only for a period of one month consider it appropriate as driving a public vehicle without a license is ‑not a very minor lapse. I would for the above reasons dismiss this appeal. K.M.A Appeal dismissed.