P L D 1961 (PLP)
LAHORE‑Appellant Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
| Citation | P L D 1961 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad. Member, Board of Revenue. |
| Parties | LAHORE‑Appellant Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 (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 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad. 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 (PLP) (LAHORE‑Appellant Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdur Rahim for Appellant.
- Secretary R. T. A. Rawalpindi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Route permit‑Route lying within jurisdiction of two Regional Transport Authorities‑One R. T. A. granting route permit Other authority should countersign provided there is necessity for additional. (b) Route permit‑R. T. A. passing order without notice and without hearing party‑Order may be set aside.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 120 of 1958‑59, decided on 3rd January ; 961, District Rawalpindi. (a) Route permit‑Route lying within jurisdiction of two Regional Transport Authorities‑One R. T. A. granting route permit Other authority should countersign provided there is necessity for additional. (b) Route permit‑R. T. A. passing order without notice and without hearing party‑Order may be set aside. Abdur Rahim for Appellant. Secretary R. T. A. Rawalpindi for Respondent. The R. T. A. Lahore granted two permits to the appellant to ply from Lyallpur to Gujranwala via Pindi bhattian. The permits had to be countersigned by the R. T. A. Raualpindi as a part of the route i e. from Pindi Bhattian to Gujranwala lies in their jurisdiction. without giving notice to the appellant company or complying with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act the R. T. A. Rawalpindi in their meeting held on the 15th and 16th January refused to countersign the permits. In the same order the Rawalpindi Authority held that there was some necessity for increase in services between Pindi Bhattian and Gujranwala i.e., on the part of the route which lies within their jurisdiction. The Lahore Authority had already granted a permit for the entire route and it may be safely presumed that in these circumstances there was need for additional services between Lyallpur and Pindi Bhattian. It is therefore difficult to understand wily .the Rawalpindi Authority declined to countersign the permits though they held that there was necessity for increase of services. In respect of the route which lay within their jurisdiction, I would accordingly accept this appeal and direct the R. T. A., Rawalpindi to countersign these two permits. Another point deserving monitory is about limitation. The order appealed against was passed in the Rawalpindi Authority's meeting held on the 15th and 16th January 1959 and the appeal was filed on the 4th April. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that no notice was issued to the appellants, so that they were not in a position to know what was happening. As a matter of fact they only leant of the order passed on the 24th March when one of the shareholders of the appellant concern enquired of the Rawalpindi R. T. A as to what had transpired in the case. Anyhow the order passed is bad in law. It was passed without notice and without hearing the appellants. If is therefore set aside. K. M. A. Order set aside.