GENERAL MANAGER, NHA, MULTAN versus MUHAMMAD AQEEL AHMEDANI
Sections 27, 2 (c) and 33 of the National Highways Authority Act (1991), the jurisdiction of the consumer court, the definition of the consumer toll plaza toll tax and the scope, the submission of the complainant to the consumer court The directive was called to establish a toll plaza. It will be transferred to its original location by the National Highways Authority (NHA) and no toll will be received from the complainant until it was decided that the highway authority will not The toll plaza will not receive until the new designation does not provide such facility. The Highway Authority held that the consumer court had no jurisdiction in this matter; under section 10 (2) of the National Highway Authority Act 1991, the authority could establish or obtain a toll plaza on the national highways. Is. , Which was a prejudice and act of authority in which the court should not interfere in the ordinary course of affairs, the consumer court was established. There was no jurisdiction to protect the users of the products and services and to prevent them from moving the law-established toll plazas or to prevent the authority from collecting toll tax on toll plazas built on the highways. , Traveled beyond its jurisdiction, and the defective order could not be maintained in the eyes of the law and the complainant did not fall under the jurisdiction of the user because the establishment of a toll plaza was for the purpose of collecting toll tax and no service. Was. Was provided to any complainant, the consumer's imported order was set aside, and the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed, in which case the appeal was allowed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
