P L D 1961 W (PLP)
THE AHMED TRANSPORT COMPANY‑Appellant Versus OTHER. T. A., LAHORE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member Board of Revenue |
| Parties | THE AHMED TRANSPORT COMPANY‑Appellant Versus OTHER. T. A., LAHORE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 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 1961 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. W. Abbasi, Member Board of Revenue.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W (PLP) (THE AHMED TRANSPORT COMPANY‑Appellant Versus OTHER. T. A., LAHORE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Salamatullah for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Route permit‑Not necessary that B Part permit must always be carried and produced on demand. (b) Route permit‑Breach of R. 4.9 (iii), Motor Vehicles Rules‑Offence. Secretary R. T. A., Lahore.
Judgment & Decree
R. O. A. M. No. 22 of 1960‑61, decided on 7th December 1960, District Lahore. (a) Route permit‑Not necessary that B Part permit must always be carried and produced on demand. (b) Route permit‑Breach of R. 4.9 (iii), Motor Vehicles Rules‑Offence. Salamatullah for Appellant. Secretary R. T. A., Lahore. This is an appeal against R. T. A., Lahore's order suspending the appellant's route permit on Lyallpur‑Sialkot. route for a period of one month. The ground on which this action was taken was that the driver failed to produce either the route permit or registration certificate on demand. Actually the registration certificate had been submitted to the Registering‑ Authority in connection with the payment of token tax but it is admitted that the route permit (B part) was not produced by the driver on demand as required by rule 4.9 (iii). R. T. A's. order under section 60 has been challenged on the ground that the drivers failure‑to produce the B Part permit did not involve the breach of any condition either specified in subsection (3) of section 59 or in the permit. On behalf of R. T. A. it is contended that the B Part permit contains a condition that the permit whenever demanded by an Inspecting Officer must be produced. I have looked through the specimen form of Part B, Item (VI) of which contains certain conditions. But these conditions do not include the direction that the B Part permit must always be carried and produced on demand. The heading of the permit no doubt is summary to be exhibited on each vehicle". But this is just a descriptive heading and has not been incorporated in the conditions. So far therefore as breach of conditions of the permit is concerned the R. T. A. has no case for action under section
60. But the breach of rule 4.9 (iii) in respect of ' this omission is punishable under other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and action could have been initiated against the appellant there under. So far as section 60 is concerned it is inapplicable to the present case and the appeal is accepted. K. M. A. Appeal accepted. Appeal accepted.