Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 1724 1961 SLD 1724 = 1961 PLD 30
West Pakistan
Appeal No. 32 of 1957-58, decided on 23rd May 1960, District Lahore
Presented By: M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue
Muhammad Salim for Appellant.   Secretary R. T. A. Lahore for
Respondent No. 1.   Kh. Abdur Rahim for
Respondent No. 2.   Muhammad Afzal Cheema for
Respondent No. 3

THE PAKISTAN-LYALLPUR SAMUNDRI TRANSPORT   COMPANY LIMITED, LYALLPUR-Appellant  

VERSUS

  THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE   AND OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

Section: 57(7)

Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 57 (7)-Order refusing application for permit should contain reasons for refusal-Omis sion to give reasons curable, if no prejudice caused and order granting route permit is not unfair.   A I R 1957 Raj. 239 not fol.   ORDER   The appellant applied for four permits on Lyallpur Chichawatni route via Summandri, which is 84 miles. R. T. A. Lahore at its meetings held on the 27th to 29th May 1957 refused the permit to the appellant but distributed 2 each to the two respondents. The appeal against respondent No. 2 has been withdrawn on the ground that their permits have been renewed and the appeal has become in fructuous. The appeal against respondent No. 3 i e. Ex-Servicemen's Co-operative Transport Society has however, been argued on both sides.   The appellant is an existing operator on this route and is also in possession of a large number of permits on other routes. It also claims to have had a satisfactory record of transport service. The main objection taken by the appellant to the grant of two permits to respondent No. 3 is that R. T. A. has not complied with the provisions laid down in subsection (7) of section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires that when an Authority refuses an application for a permit of any kind, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for refusal, It is a fact that R. T. A. did not give any reasons for refusal of permits in any case when it disposed of about 150 permits on the three dates-27th-29th May 1957. R. T. A' proceedings simply announced that it had heard both the parties, the petitioners as well as the objectors, and made its distribution of the permits a bare list of which was set forth in the order. A case of the Rajasthan High Court of India (A I R 1957 Raj.239) has been cited to show that the order of refusal must give reasons in a "succinct form" because the Tribunal functions as a "judicial or quasi judicial" authority exercising "judicial functions". But the Supreme Court of Pakistan has in a case, arising out of the same proceedings of R. T. A, Lahore, made it clear that a Transport Authority under the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register