SYED KAMAL versus CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
RR 91 (2) and 94 (3) of the Specific Relief Act (of 1877), Articles 42 and 54 of the Declaration and Order of the Ummah plaintiff prayed that the plaintiff (Civil Aviation Authority) be instructed to make certain Prevent plaintiff from taking the mini bus on the route. Service by the Regional Transport Authority in accordance with their valid route permit and on the one hand the defendant (aviation authority), on the other hand carrying the mini bus service, without the permit, on the other hand The defendant had resisted. Any route permit on the same route allowed 12 seats. The sole authority did not have the authority to permit a route permit to be placed in the Regional Transport Authority and the defendant (Aviation Authority) on any basis to stop the plaintiff's minibus services. The plaintiff / civil aviation authority was not in a position to question the accuracy. The Regional Transport Authority issued a route permit for operating coach services throughout the province and that all areas of the cantonment were included within the territorial boundaries of a province in which they reside as defendants. After being replaced, the old airport was refurbished. The plaintiff's license was invalid, it was also not acceptable The plaintiff (Civil Aviation Authority) could not question the purpose of a valid route permit, nor did it accept the responsibility of the regional duty for the purpose of the license or its Had the option to decide on the feasibility of. The transport authority's claimant, if it appears to be, is moving the airport to the new terminal despite the old airline
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
