P L D 1957 W (PLP)
KHUSHAB and another BUS SERVICE‑Petitioners Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHUSHAB and another BUS SERVICE‑Petitioners Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 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 1957 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 W (PLP) (KHUSHAB and another BUS SERVICE‑Petitioners Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Yaqub Khan, Secretary R.T.A., Rawalpindi for respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Route permit‑Route falling partly in Lahore and partly in Rawalpindi Region‑Permit Issued by Authorities in Lahore‑Concurrence to permit once given by Rawalpindi, cannot be withdrawn later.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
The two permits issue to the appellant companies by the Regional Transport Authority Lahore, were on a route falling in the Lahore region and partly extending to the Rawalpindi region. These permits were, therefore, forwarded to the R.T.A., Rawalpindi, for their concurrence. This concurrence was granted on 28th April 1956, and " it was further decided that this concurrence would be on reciprocal basis". The Secretary R. T. A., present states that the purport of the above‑mentioned words within inverted commas was that two bus permits would be issued by the R. T. A., Rawalpindi, at some future date and that the Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, would be required to grant concurrence and that if such concurrence was not granted, the countersignature in the case of the two permits of the appellant companies would be withdrawn. Such a withdrawal is not permitted by rules. The counter‑signature has actually been granted to the two appellant companies. The condition which the R. T. A., Rawalpindi, imposed may have some effect on a future decision of the R. T. A., Lahore, but it cannot have any effect on the two bus permits allowed‑to the two appellant companies. They will be considered to have been granted the permits on the Khushab‑Talagang route in the normal way, the H R. T. As. of both Lahore and Rawalpindi being committed. This appeal should be considered to have been accepted to this extent. I take the opportunity of mentioning that the order which the R. T. A., Rawalpindi, passed should have been in greater detail and they could very well hold up the counter signature on the two permits of the present appellants till they had decided to grant some permits to their own operators on the whole or part of the route in dispute. Finally, concurrence in such circumstances should have been granted by both the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. The counter‑signatures on the permits of the two appellant companies would also have abided the joint decisions of the two Regional Transport Authorities. The Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, does not appear to have followed the right course and, as mentioned above, I cannot permit the appellant companies to remain in doubt regarding the validity) of the permits which have been sanctioned to them by the Lahore Authority and countersigned by the Rawalpindi Authority. A.H. Appeal accepted.