Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 1052 of 1949‑50, decided on 17th May, 1951 from the order of Regional Transport Authority Rawalpindi.

(a) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), Ss. 16 and 44 Regional Transport Authority not bound by directions issued by any Authority except lawful order of Provincial Transport Authority.'

The Regional Transport Authority is a quasi‑judicial body which is not bound by the directions issued by any Authority except those issued by the Provincial Transport Authority while exercising its powers within the ambit of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(b) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 44‑Internal difference among share‑holders of Company, but no breach of conditions of permit‑Authority cannot interfere.

If there were internal differences amongst the share holders of the Company it was not the business of the Authority to interfere in what was essentially a domestic affair. Had those differences resulted in any breach of conditions of its permit or had the Company in any way violated the provisions of law the Authority would have been justified in taking action prescribed by law.

Present :‑---

Mahmud Ali, for Appellant.

Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi.

.‑This is an appeal against an order dated the 29th July 1950, (Item No. 25 (i), passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, whereby the " Orders " contained in Letter No. 2722‑T, dated the 10th July 1950, from the Provincial Transport Controller, Punjab, to the Regional Transport Authority Rawalpindi, were communicated to certain share‑holders of the appellant Company and it was decided that no further temporary permits should be granted to the appellant.

2. It may be pointed out at the very outset that the so- called orders emanating from the Provincial Transport Controller are not orders but a mere recommendation that in view of the difference between the share‑holders of the appellant Company, the combine might be refused the further issue of temporary permits. Moreover the Regional Transport Authority is a quasi‑judicial body which is not bound by the directions issued by any Authority except those issued by the Provincial Transport Authority while exercising its powers within the ambit of the Motor Vehicles Act. The office of the Provincial Transport Controller is not recognised by the Act. The Authority was therefore in the wrong when it took the recommendation made by the Provincial Transport Controller as orders emanating from him and especially when that recommendation was not based on any provision of the Act.

3. If there were any internal differences amongst the share holders of the appellant Company it was not the business of the) Authority to interfere in what was essentially a domestic affair of the appellant. Had those differences resulted in any breach of conditions of its permit or had the Company in any way violated the provisions of law the Authority would have been justified ink taking action prescribed by law. As it is the decision taken by the Authority is unsustainable and must be set aside. The appellant Company should be granted permits for a period of 3 to 5 years after formalities, if any, necessitated by law have been gone through. Interim order passed by me on 1st August 1950, is hereby vacated.

Announced.

K.M.A Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.