Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 270 of 1958‑59, decided on 21st May 1960, District Lahore.

(a) Route permit‑Permit‑holder selling vehicle without per mission of R. T. A.‑Permit liable to cancellation.

(b) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 60 (1) (c)‑Holder of permit failing to produce vehicle‑Permit can be cancelled.

This is an appeal against R. T. A's order dated 10‑8‑1959 canceling the appellant's public carrier route permit No. 425/50 on the ground that the appellant ceased to possess a vehicle to R. T. A's approval.

The appellant originally possessed a vehicle No. PB‑5‑5381 (1953 Model) which he sold off without obtaining the permission of the Authority. He applied for replacement by a lower model Vehicle but his application was rejected by the Chairman, Sub sequently however, R. T. A. decided to permit him replacement on compassionate grounds on 12‑1‑1959. He seems to have bought a second vehicle No. 9267 (1949 Model) which was not approved by the R. T. A. The third vehicle he purchased was No. 8342 (1955 model) which was rejected by the R. T. A. The fourth vehicle he acquired was No. 9578 but this also was defective. On 25‑6‑1959 when this vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicle Inspector he was directed to get the defects removed and produce the vehicle for approval on 7‑7‑1959. He sent a telegram to R. T. A. informing it that he could not produce the vehicle on account of disturbances caused by the floods. The Regional Transport Authority once more allowed him an oppor tunity by its order dated 23‑7‑1959 that he could produce the vehicle on any working day for inspection. R. T. A. waited until 10‑8‑1959 when it finally cancelled his permit, for not pro ducing the vehicle for approval. On 11‑8‑1959 the appellant informed R. T. A. that his vehicle was ready for inspection.

The cancellation order was passed under section 60(1)(c) which lays down that if the holder of a permit fails to produce the vehicle covered by the permit, it is liable to cancellation by the R. T. A. It would appear that the R.T. A. gave the appellant a number of chances to produces the vehicle which the appellant failed to avail in spite of a series of warnings given to him. His permit was liable to cancellation in the first instance because he had sold the vehicle without the permission of the R. T. A., and it was only a compassionate act when R. T. A. decided to permit him replacement but he did not take advantage of the several oppor tunities granted to him. The appeal is in effect dismissed.

K. M. A. A Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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