P L D (Rev (PLP)
THAL TRANSPORT SERVICE (REGED.)‑Petitioner Versus (1) R. T. A. LAHORE (2) MUSLIM BUS SERVICE SARGODHA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | THAL TRANSPORT SERVICE (REGED.)‑Petitioner Versus (1) R. T. A. LAHORE (2) MUSLIM BUS SERVICE SARGODHA‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (THAL TRANSPORT SERVICE (REGED.)‑Petitioner Versus (1) R. T. A. LAHORE (2) MUSLIM BUS SERVICE SARGODHA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mahmud Ali Qasurz and Muhammad Iqbal, for Appellant.
- Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Route permit
‑Diversion covering considerable distance over new area‑Grant of permits over diversion should be regulated by procedure laid down in Act and the rules‑Non‑compliance with such Procedure and rules, however, condoned in this case as appellant was not adversely affected thereby. Where the distance is considerable the diversion ceases to be a diversion and for grant of permits along the diversion the granting authority must observe the procedure laid down in the Act and the rules for grant of permit along a new route. The appeal, in this case, however was dismissed because no adverse effect was caused to the appellant company by non‑compliance with the procedure prescribed in the Act and the Rules.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR AHMAD, F. C.‑The Muslim Bus Service were allowed to divert one of their services plying between Sargodha and Rangpur via Gunjail another newly opened section of the road via Mitha Tiwana‑Adhikot by the Regional Transport Authority vide their order No. 28 passed in their meeting held on 24th April, 1954. The That Transport Company have appealed against this order and the reason that has been given is that they too had applied for the main Kalurkot‑Khushab route and their application was rejected without any reason. This is not so. As already mentioned in my order of date in appeals Nos. 24, 47 and 61 of 1953‑54, the appellants have been granted two permits on a section of this route and the Muslim Bus Service have been granted two permits on another section of this route, so that between the two of them they cover the entire route. As regards the alleged diversion, the Thal Transport Company have not been adversely affected by it and they have thus no grounds to come up in appeal. In my opinion, however, Mitha Tiwana‑Adhikot section does not constitute a diversion, as it covers a considerable distance over new area; the Regional Transport Authority should thus have, observed the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules when granting these permits. The appeal, however, stands dismissed. A. H. Appeal dismissed.