Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

THE NEW JHELUM TRANSPORT CO. LTD. versus R. T. A. RAWALPINDI


Exchange Section 44 (3) (4) of the Property Act 1882 Provincial Transport Authority, which is ordering the Regional Transport Authority not to issue a stage carriage permit in view of the anticipated nationalization of the Road Passenger Transport Order Ultra Virus, (PLD) Rio (1951 Punjab 9 ref)

P L D (Rev.) 1955 Punjab 1

Before Nasir Ahmad, Financial Commissioner

THE NEW JHELUM TRANSPORT Co. LTD. --Petitioner

Versus

R. T. A. RAWALPINDI‑Respondent

Appellate Side No. 124 of 1953‑54, decided on 12th January, 1955. District R. T. A. Rawalpindi.

Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939)------

----

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.

ORDER

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.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
top advocates from Upper Deval lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.