P L D (Rev (PLP)
THE NEW JHELUM TRANSPORT Co. LTD. — Petitioner Versus R. T. A. RAWALPINDI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THE NEW JHELUM TRANSPORT Co. LTD. — Petitioner Versus R. T. A. RAWALPINDI‑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 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 (Rev (PLP) (THE NEW JHELUM TRANSPORT Co. LTD. — Petitioner Versus R. T. A. RAWALPINDI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 44 (3) (4)‑Provincial Transport Authority ordering Regional Transport Authority not to issue stage carriage permits in view of expected nationalisation of road passenger transport‑Order ultra vires, (P. L. D. (Rev.) 1951 Punjab 9 ref.).
Judgment & Decree
S. 44 (3) (4)‑Provincial Transport Authority ordering Regional Transport Authority not to issue stage carriage permits in view of expected nationalisation of road passenger transport‑Order ultra vires, (P. L. D. (Rev.) 1951 Punjab 9 ref.). Kh. Abdur Rahim, for Appellant. Secretary, R. T. A. Rawalpindi, for the R. T. A. NASIR AHMAD, F. C.‑The Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, has refused to grant stage carriage permits under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the New Jhelum Transport Co. Ltd. on two different routes on the ground that the Provincial Transport Authority had given them instruc tions in their letter No. 6646‑T‑54/5586‑88, dated 17th May 1954, that in view of nationalization of road passenger trans port, no fresh permits on certain routes, which include these in question, should be issued. It is contended in appeal on behalf of the Transport Company that the Provincial Trans port Authority is not competent to issue prohibitory directions of this nature, as their functions and powers are restricted to the provisions laid down in section 44, subsections (3) and (4), of the Act. This proposition has already been discussed in case The Lower Bari Doab Co‑operative Transport Society Ltd. Montgomery v. R. T. A. Multan (P L D (Rev.) 1951 Pb. 9.) by Akhter Hussain Financial Commissioner who had held in similar circumstances that a Regional Transport Authority was not justified in refusing to grant permits for the reason that a scheme of nationalization of road passenger transport was expected to be enforced by Government. As a matter of fact, a mere perusal of the section would show that the issue of instructions under consideration, directing the Regional Transport Authority not to issue stage carriage permits, is outside the' jurisdiction and powers of the Provincial Transport Authority, and is ultra vires of the Act. I would, therefore, accept both the appeals and direct that the Regional Transport Authority should come to a decision on the merits in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is unfortunate that these were not gone into at all, and the applications were rejected solely on the above mentioned technical ground. A. H. Appeals accepted.