P L D 1959 W (PLP)
BAHAWALPUR MUSLIM BUS SERVICE LTD., BAHAWALPUR‑Petitioner Versus R. T. A. MULTAN and another‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | R. A. Muhammadi, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | BAHAWALPUR MUSLIM BUS SERVICE LTD., BAHAWALPUR‑Petitioner Versus R. T. A. MULTAN and another‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: R. A. Muhammadi, 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 D 1959 W (PLP) (BAHAWALPUR MUSLIM BUS SERVICE LTD., BAHAWALPUR‑Petitioner Versus R. T. A. MULTAN and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Route permit‑Government dues outstanding against applicant
No ground to refuse permit.
Judgment & Decree
Appellate Side No. 112 of 1956‑57, decided on 24th October 1957, District Multan. Route permit‑Government dues outstanding against applicant
No ground to refuse permit. In this case, in view of the presence of certain governmental dues against the Appellants, R. T. A. Multan neither granted nor refused their request for permanent permits on the Ahmadpur to Yazman route. Instead, it ordered that the question of dues not paid by them should be decided within four months ending 26‑11‑57, whereafter the question of grant of permits under section 57/58 of the Motor Vehicles Act to them, would be considered. Appellants have inter alia questioned the legality of the above order the result of which is virtually to coerce them into paying certain dues which they apparently do not admit and which are the subject‑matter 9f pending civil suits, filed by Government against them.
2. Vide my order dated 24th October 1957 on R. O. A. M. No. 113 of 1956‑57, I have already held that the presence or otherwise of Government dues against an applicant is not a valid consideration for the grant or refusal of permits to him under the Motor Vehicles Act, and that it would hardly be legal to utilise the agency of the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of accelerating the recovery of Government dues. The basis on which the R. T. A. came to defer the case is, therefore, not legal and outside the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. In view of the above, I set aside the order of the R. T. A. Multan and return the case back to them to decide it on merits and without reference to the presence or otherwise of any amounts that may be due to Government from the Appellants. K. M. A. Case remanded.