Sections 50 (1) (b) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), replacement and effective treatment of the person affected by the rehabilitation of section 44 HC, information on the absence of Transport Minister was issued. There were route permits for motor vehicles. Respondents in favor of the appellant and pro forma respondents, feeling that the writ petition was filed before the Hutt Court, challenged the validity of the notification. The main complaint of the respondents was that the Minister had no jurisdiction to issue the route permit through illegal decisions / orders. Route Permit Minister Transport, although the powers have been delegated to the Government under Section 50 (1) (b) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1971, but the delegation of powers has delegated the route permit delegation to the Minister. Not given authorization The delegation could not go beyond the powers given to it, nor could the delegator delegate the powers to which he was not given powers, the Minister was given these powers to Transport, under which the Minister was given only this authority. That they may order the transport authority to introduce new routes or grant any additional permits to any particular party. But he could not allow the direct route by himself, or in the grip of this notification the High Court rightly stated that the route issued by the Minister in favor of the appellant was not granted by the respondents without any legal authority Were done, their writ petitions specifically denied that they were doing the transport business in the area, so it cannot be said that the defendants were angry.
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2014
