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. 228 of 194&49, decided on 19th January 1950 from the order of R. T. A., Rawalpindi, dated 29/30th August, 1949.
S. 44 (7)‑Regional Transport Authority‑Whether could apportion shares in evacuee transport company.
It is no function of a Transport Authority to apportion shares in a transport company. It either grants permits or not to applicants for them. Furthermore, it is in no way incumbent on it to carry out the suggestions of an Officer on Special Duty in the Transport Department. The distribution of shares in an evacuee company, or in a company to replace it, is the function of the Rehabilitation Authorities.
Mahmud Ali Qasuri, for Appellants.
Kh. Abdur Rahim, for Respondents.
This is an appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, dated the 29th/30th August, 1949 by which that Authority filed an application by the appel lants for the allotment of shares in the Pakistan Northern Transport Company, Rawalpindi. This Company had in it possession certain stage carriage permits and the appellants had been recommended by an Officer on Special Duty (Transport) for an increased share in that company on the ground that they were deserving refugees. It is no function of a Transport Authority to apportion shares in a transport company. It either grants permits or not to applicants for them. Furthermore, ii is in no way incumbent on it to carry out the suggestions on an Officer on Special Duty in the Transport Department. The distribution of shares in an evacuee company or in a compare) to replace it, is the function of the Rehabilitation Authorities If the Officer on Special Duty (Transport) was a Rehabilitation Officer he should have issued his instructions as a Rehabilitation Officer and not as an Officer on Special Duty in the Transport Department, in which case doubtless an appeal would have lain with the rehabilitation appellate authority. As it is, the Regional Transport Authority was in my opinion quite correct in disregarding the advice given by the Officer on Special Duty and in refusing to interest itself over the further allotment of shares to the appellants. I reject the appeal.
A. H. Appeal rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer