Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petitions Nos. 408, 409, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417 and 420 of 1967, decided on 28th June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 21st July 1967, in Writ Petitions Nos. 768, 792, 773, 769, 771, 770, 772, 793 and 128 of 1967).
Art. 98‑Laches‑Explanation that petitioner was awaiting result of writ petition filed by a third party‑Not satisfactory.
Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
M. B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (no Advocate with him) instructed by Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Attorney for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in C. P. No. 420 of 1967).
‑This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 408, 409, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417 and 420 of 1967.
The petitioner‑Companies and some others were granted permits for plying buses on different routes by the Regional Transport Authority, Lahore on the 9th/10th February 1962. Appeals were filed against these grants to the Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore. who by his orders dated the 22nd April 1962, and the 9th August 1962 set aside the orders granting the permits and remanded the case for fresh decision. New Muhammadi Transport Service Ltd., challenged the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue in a writ petition filed in the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore and obtained an order on the 10th March 1965, that the decision of the Member Board of Revenue was without lawful authority. After this judgment these nine petitioners made an application to the Regional Transport Authority on the 10th November 1966, for the restoration of their permits. This was refused. The petitioners then. filed writ petitions in the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore. They have been dismissed on the ground of latches as the petitioners did not take steps to challenge the impugned orders of the Member Board of Revenue for periods ranging from three to four years. The explanation that the petitioners waited for the result of the case filed in the High Court by one of the Companies has been considered to be unsatisfactory. It has further been found that the decision obtained by a third party in regard to the order of the Member Board of Revenue did not automatically operate for the benefit of the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the orders of the Member Board of Revenue setting aside the orders of the Regional Transport Authority were declared to be without lawful authority the permits in favour of the petitioners automatically were revived. We are not impressed by this argument. The permits were granted on the 9th/10th February 1962. They were cancelled by orders dated the 22nd April 1962 and the 9th August 1962. The petitioners did not take any steps before the 10th November 1966. In these circumstances the Regional Transport Authority justifiably refused to restore the permits.
The petitions are dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer