Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLG 1285 1996 SLD 1285 1996 CLC 182
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-191 of 1995, decision dated: 19-07-1995. dates of hearing: 17th, 18th and 19-07-1995
HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Munawar Malik for Petitioners. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.G., Sindh for
Respondent No. 1. S. Iqbal Hasan Rizvi and Latifur Rehman Sarwary for
Respondent No. 2

PERVEZ IQBAL and 2 others

VS

PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, SINDH and another

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)-------S. 50---West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, Rr.240, 241, 242, 243, 244 & 245-- "Stage carriage" and "Contract carriage"---Comparison and distinctive features---"Contract carriage" is to hire a vehicle as a whole in the name of hiring party while "stage carriages" are required to make specified number of return trips of service on the route or routes specified in the permit and issuance of tickets to individual passengers for the fare paid---Timings are also to be specified for departure of "stage carriage"---"Contract carriage" is not permitted to pick up individual passengers---While bus-stops have been notified for "stage carriage", such facility could not be provided in case of "contract carriage"---Authority had no jurisdiction to specify halting points and to facilitate picking up or setting down individual passengers from or at various places against fare to be paid individually by each passenger---Contract carriage is engaged as a whole, by the party or group of persons under a contract at or for a fixed or agreed rate for a journey from one point to another without stopping to pick up or set down the passengers---Law having prescribed different conditions for permits to be issued to different categories of Public Service Vehicles, Authorities functioning under West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, would have to abide by, while issuing permits, to provisions of the Ordinance---Authorities' action in permitting conversion of "contract carriages" into "stage carriages" was in violation of law and same could not be sustained---Respondent (owner of contract carriages) had been put in advantageous position as compared to petitioner (owner of stage carriages) whose business had been adversely affected---Authority had acted in excess of its powers to permit owner of "contract carriage" to ply his vehicles like those of stage carriage and its such order was not sustainable in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Alternate remedy available but not exhausted---Effect---Where alternate remedy was not equally…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492