| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1968 SLG 88 1968 SLD 88 1968 PLD 64 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 40 of 1966, decision dated: 28th November 1967.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLEAKBAR AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
Muhammad Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Appellant No. I (in all the Appeals). Nasir-ud-Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. M. Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz All, Attorney for Appellant N
Civil Appeals Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 40 of 1966, decision dated: 28th November 1967.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLEAKBAR AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
Muhammad Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Appellant No. I (in all the Appeals). Nasir-ud-Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. M. Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz All, Attorney for Appellant N
Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1966 (1) THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND (2) THE WEST PAKISTAN ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE
VS
(1) THE AMRITSARPATHANKOT TRANSPORT Co. LTD., LAHORE AND (2) THE PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, COMMUNICATIONS Civi
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)-Leave to appeal-Granted by Supreme Court as question raised was of general public importance" viz. that S. 43(4) (a), Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939) was ultra vires the Federal Legislature. (b) Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 43(4) (a) read with Government of India Act, 1935, S. 299(1), (2)-Subsection (4) (a) of S. 43 of Act IV of 1939 ultra vires the Federal Legislature being violative of rights protected by S. 299, Government of India Act, 1935-Object of subsection not regulation but deprivation of right of permit-holders-Word "acquisition" in S.299(2) comprehends cases where "rights and title is taken out and appropriated by transfer, extinction or other process." Subsection (4) of section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, being violative of the right protected by section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, was ultra vires the Federal Legislature and hence the impugned notifications issued under the said subsection were also bad in law. The provision in subsection (4)(a), which is inserted by the amendment of 1951, is totally of a different character from the provisions of subsections (1) to (3) of section 43, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Its object seems to be not regulation but deprivation of the right of permit holders to ply their vehicles for hire with a view to give the same to Road Transport Board. From the words used in this subsection it cannot be said that this provision is one for regulation and control of the transport business. Its real purpose appears to be to confer monopoly rights on the Road Transport Board for the purpose of plying buses to the exclusion of the permit holders. There can, therefore, be no doubt that by the notifications issued by the Government the transport companies have been deprived of their right to ply their vehicles for hire on the specified routes. Once a permit is taken away, nothing would be left to the transport company but the empty husk of ownership of the undertaking. It was then contended that such deprivation of a permit would not amount to its acquisition by the Government. The word "acquisition" would comprehend all cases where right and title is…
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