P L ID 1962 W (PLP)
HAMID-ULLAH KHAN-Appellant Versus R. T. A. PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER Respondents
| Citation | P L ID 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. M. Khan Leghari, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | HAMID-ULLAH KHAN-Appellant Versus R. T. A. PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L ID 1962 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L ID 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. M. Khan Leghari, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L ID 1962 W (PLP) (HAMID-ULLAH KHAN-Appellant Versus R. T. A. PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Route permit-(B Part) known as fleet chit-Grant. (b) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 64-No appeal lies against grant of B Part permit.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 64-No appeal lies against grant of B Part permit. Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. The Regional Transport Authority Peshawar, in their 44th meeting on 23rd and 24th November 1961, at D. I. Khan granted Service Permits to Usman Bus Service on their three `B' Parts. This type of service-permit is largely in vogue in the Central Zone and is known as fleet chit. I see no objection to this grant. The appellant himself s admits that he has been granted a service-permit for his own buses. His objection is that the respondent Bus Service is not maintaining any reserve vehicles. The R. T. A. may look into this allegation in the light of the Provincial Transport Autho rity's directives at the Peshawar meeting held in December 1961, on the question of reserve vehicles. In so far as the present appeal is concerned, it does not lie vide any of the seven clauses of section
64. This is definitely not a case of a grant of a permit or any condition being attached k thereto, from which the appellant can be aggrieved within the definition of section 64 (f) or any other sub-clause of that section. The appeal is consequently dismissed in limine. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.