P L D 1959 (W (PLP)
THE ITTEFAQ BUS SERVICE‑Petitioner Versus R. T. A. RAWALPINDI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. T. Naqvi, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | THE ITTEFAQ BUS SERVICE‑Petitioner Versus R. T. A. RAWALPINDI‑Respondent |
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: A. T. Naqvi, 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) (THE ITTEFAQ BUS SERVICE‑Petitioner Versus R. T. A. RAWALPINDI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Route permit‑Applicant not possessing vehicle even after exten sion of time‑Permit justifiably revoked.
Judgment & Decree
Appellate Side No. 78 of 1958‑59, decided on, l lth May 1959, District Rawalpindi. Route permit‑Applicant not possessing vehicle even after exten sion of time‑Permit justifiably revoked. This appeal has been preferred against the decision of the R. T. A., Lahore, communicated to the appellant's company in their Memo. No. 370/72/PT‑59, dated 29‑1‑1959, by which the authority decided to revolve its sanction, granting one stage carriage permit to the appellant's company on Wazirabad‑Sialkot route.
2. The facts of this case are that the appellant's company was granted one stage carriage permit in meeting held on the 10th, 11th, 13th and 14th June 1958, on Wazirabad‑Sialkot route. In their Memo. No. 2693/PT‑58, dated 19‑7‑1958, the appellant's company was asked to obtain the permit after producing the registration certificate of vehicle covered with a valid certificate of fitness, by the 18th August 1958. The appellant's company was further informed that in case the registration certificate was not produced within the prescribed period, the sanction would be revoked. The appellant's company could not produce the registration certificate of the vehicle within the prescribed period i.e., 18‑8‑1958. On 16‑8‑1958, the appellant's company, however, applied for the extension of the vehicle (sic) for two months. This application was considered by the authority in its meeting held on the 7th and 8th November 1958, and it was decided to allow the extension, till the decision of the Board of Revenue to those who were in posses sion of vehicle on that day. The request of those not possessing A vehicles was declined. Even on that day i.e., 7th and 8th Novem ber 1958, the appellant's company was not in possession of the vehicle and as such the sanction was revoked.
3. There is no justification for interference with the decision of the Authority appealed against. The result is that the appeal is dismissed. A. H. Appeal dismissed.