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.
Appeal No. 52 of 1961‑62, decided on 16th January 1962, District Multan.
(f)‑Grant of permit or attaching any condition to grant thereof‑Grounds for appeal--- Decision of R. T. A. to notify applications for routes advertised-- Not grant of permit.
M. Saleem Chaudhry for Appellants.
Friends Bus Service and other appellants have moved this Authority under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Multan to consider the grant of B' parts in the Chishtian- Haroonabad route.' As is so often happening, no effort is made by the appellants to quote the subsection of section 64 under which their appeal is filed. At first the learned counsel for appellants said that the appeal came under section 64 (a} and eventually ended up by claiming that the appeal was admissible under section 64 (f), as his clients were operators on Chishtian Haroonabad route providing transport facilities and they had opposed the grant of the permits. Section 64 (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act however, permits persons of this category to file appeal only if they are "aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto" The learned counsel has tried to argue that the decision of the Regional Transport Authority to notify applications and to consider these for the routes advertised is tantamount to a grant thereof. I am unable to appreciate this argument. The plain wordings of the enactment will not carry this interpretation.
The appeal is premature and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. An appeal can be filed if and when the present appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Transport Authority granting the permits to other parties.
K. M. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer