| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 1943 1961 SLD 1943 = 1961 PLD 87 |
West Pakistan
R. O. A. M. No. 237 of 1958-59, decided on 14th December 1960, District Lyallpur.
Presented By: M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue,
R. O. A. M. No. 237 of 1958-59, decided on 14th December 1960, District Lyallpur.
Presented By: M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue,
ALKISAN TRANSPORT Co., GROUP (B) LTD., LYALLPUR
VERSUS
THE R. T. A., LAHORE AND ANOTHER
Law: Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Section:
(a) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939)-Review--Not provided for by Act-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), not applicable. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, have not ipso facto been made applicable to the cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and there is no warrant for the view that they can be used to fill up gaps or omissions in the special enactment. There is also no reason to assume that the Motor Vehicles Act is not a self-contained enactment; and if a specific provision does not figure in it, it can also be argued, with greater force and justification, that the omission was deliberate and that the Legislature did not want it to be in the Special Act. P L D 1955 Ph. (Rev.) 45 ref. (b) Route permit-R. T. A., may accept change in name of limited company for limited purpose of granting permits. ORDER This is an application for a review of my appellate order dated 26-3-1960 in a case between the parties cited above. Originally, the Alkisan Transport Company was a single body but it was bifurcated under the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, into two Groups, A and B; their assets including vehicles, permits etc., were also divided between them on the basis of the Chief Settlement and Rehabili tation Commissioner's order. In the new circumstances, the respondent company considered it desirable to change its name to "New Kisan Transport Co." in order to remove all doubt and confusion resulting from division and sub-divisions. R. T. A. Lahore accepted their changed name for 12 permits endorsed by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. In appeal I re-armed R. T. A. 's order accepting the change of name with a slight modification. A preliminary objection to the review proceedings has been taken on the ground that the Motor Vehicles Act contains no provision permitting review of an order. In reply it has been contended that where there is no specific provision of law under a Special Act resort can be had to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have not ipso facto been made applicable to the cases under…