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.
Appellate Side No. 226 of 1949‑50, decided on 18th May 1951.
----- S. 55‑Temporary public carrier permit‑Renewal refused by R. T. A. on ground that applicant had been convicted of cheating‑Later, however, applicant acquitted by appellate Court‑Case remanded for re‑consideration.
Ss. 55, 56‑Opera tors and non‑operators‑Distinction not made in the matter of issuing permits‑Case remanded for re‑consideration.
The Regional Transport Authority had made no distinc tion between operators or non‑operators in the matter of issuing permits to them. The only condition laid down by the Authority was that so far as the non‑operators were concern ed no individual would get more than one permanent permit. The appellant had got a permanent permit and had been utilising the same for over a year. As a non‑operator temporary permit holder be was, therefore, entitled to the same consideration to which the other non‑operators like the appellant were;
The case was remanded for re‑considerations.
Khawaja Abdur Rahim, for Appellant.
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi.
‑This is an appeal against an order dated the l8th November 1949, passed by the Regional transport Authority, Rawalpindi, whereby the Authority decided not to re‑issue temporary public carrier permit in favour of the appellant as he had got the previous permit by means of fraud and had been convicted in a case of cheating.
The above shows that in arriving at its decision the Regional Transport Authority was influenced by the fact that the appellant had been convicted in a case of cheating. Later on, however, the appellant was acquitted by the Appellate Crimi nal Court. In the circumstances its appears just that the Regional Transport Authority should reconsider this case in the light of the Appellate Criminal Court's order of acquittal. Moreover the order appealed against shows that the Authority had made no distinction between operators or non‑operators in the matter of issuing permits to them. The only condition laid down by the Authority was that so far as the non‑oper ators were concerned no individual would get more than one permanent permit. The appellant had got a permanent permit and had been utilising the same for over a year. As a non‑operator temporary permit holder he was, therefore, entitled to the same consideration to which the other' non‑operators like the appellant were. In view of all these circumstances the case is remanded back to the Regional Transport Authority for re‑consideration of the case on merits keeping in view the two factors mentioned above.
A. H.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer