| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 1729 1961 SLD 1729 = 1961 PLD 35 |
West Pakistan
Appeals No. 118 and 119 of 1959-60, decided on 7th August 1960, District Lahore.
Presented By: M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Appeals No. 118 and 119 of 1959-60, decided on 7th August 1960, District Lahore.
Presented By: M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
SARGODHA-BHERA BUS SERVICE, SARGODHA- Petitioner
VERSUS
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND THE EVERGREEN TRANSPORT Co. LTD., LYALLPUR-Respondents R. O. A. M. No. 119 of 1959-60. SARGODHA-BHERA BUS SERVICE versus R: T. A. LAHORE. THE: EV ERGREEN TRANSPORT Co. LTD., LYALLPUR AND R. O. A. M. No. 118 of 1959-60 SARGODHA-BHERA BUS SERVICE versus R. T. A. LAHORE
Law: Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Section:
Motor, Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), Ss. 64, 58, & 57 Renewal appliction to be treatedas application for grant of permit, and procedure under S. 57 to be followed -No appeal lies under S. 64, clause (f ), if no objection was filed under S. 57 (3) A I R 1956 Pat. 437 rel. Route permit-Application for extension of route, actually, for new route which waswholly uncommon and unnatural-Appli cant's service inefficient-Permit not to be granted. ORDER These are two appeals under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 4.37 against the orders of R. T. A. Lahore, by one of which R. T. A. granted an extension of 11 miles, from Kot Moman to Bhalwal to the respondent, Evergreen Transport Ltd: and by the other of which R. T. A. refused the same to the appellant Company. The appellant Company holds a number of permits on four different routes one of which is Sargodha to Sardarpur Noon via Lak and Bhalwal. It applied for what is called an extension of this route between Bhalwal and Kot Moman; but in actual effect, this extension means going up to Sardarpur Noun, coming back to Bhalwal and then going down the extension to Kot Moman. The respondent Company's route is from Lyallpur to Bhalwal via Sargodha, Mari and Lak; it also applied for extension of this route, from B alwal to Kot Moman. R. T. A. granted the extension of these t l miles to the respondent Company and denied it to the appellant. Hence the appellant Company has filed appeal No. 1 against the, rant of extension to respondent Evergreen Transport Ltd., and appeal No. 2 against R. T. A.'s refusal of grant of extension to it. So far as the first appeal is concerned a preliminary legal objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent Company, Evergreen Transport Ltd., which requires consideration. 7 he objection is that the appeal is not maintainable: the permits, the route of which was amended and extended, have expired and the appeal filed in respect of them cannot be converted into an appeal against the renewed permits which are in law on a par with new permits. What happened was that slightly before the expiration of these two permits the…