Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

1961 PLD 77

JHELUM EX-SERVICEMEN TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD. VS THE R. T. A., RAWALPINDI

Petitioner: JHELUM EX-SERVICEMEN TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD. VS Respondent: THE R. T. A., RAWALPINDI

Court: WEST-PAKISTAN-BOARD-OF-REVENUE

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

P L D 1961 W

P L D 1961 W. P. (Rev.) 77

Before Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue,

West Pakistan

JHELUM EX‑SERVICEMEN TRANSPORT

COMPANY LTD., JHELUM‑Petitioner

versus

THB R. T. A., RAWALPINDI, AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Review No. 21 of 1959‑60, decided on 16th July 1960, District Rawalpindi. Review‑No new material‑Petition not competent.

Munir Ahmad for Petitioner.

ORDER

The facts relating to this petition have been recorded in the well considered and detailed order passed by Mr. Ahsan‑ud‑Din in R. O. A. M. No. 44 of 1959‑60, dated 18‑5‑1960. The peti tioner against whom the appeal was accepted has now sought for a review of the above‑mentioned order on the ground that its acceptance was based on a report by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi which was to the effect that the appellant company was not working efficiently. This report, it is sought to be considered a new matter and for that reason a notice of it should have been given to the appellant company in accordance with the provisions of section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel has not noted the observa tions made by the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi on the petitioner's application for another route Chao Saidan Shah via Dumman and Dhok Tallian in which the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi had definitely observed that the appellant company was not fit to run bus services efficiently for various reasons. My learned predecessor merely wanted the Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi to reconcile these two conflicting reports so that no new material had come on the record which could have justified the attraction of section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I would, therefore, hold that under the existing provisions of the Board of Revenue Act this review is not tenable and reject the petition.

K. M. A. Petition rejected.

Related Legal Research & Directories