Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: THE AHMED TRANSPORT COMPANY VS Respondent: OTHER. T. A., LAHORE
P L D 1961 W
P L D 1961 W. P. (Rev.) 71
Before M. W. Abbasi, Member Board of Revenue
West Pakistan
THE AHMED TRANSPORT COMPANY‑Appellant
versus
OTHER. T. A., LAHORE‑Respondent
R. O. A. M. No. 22 of 1960‑61, decided on 7th December 1960, District Lahore.
(a) Route permit‑Not necessary that B Part permit must always be carried and produced on demand.
(b) Route permit‑Breach of R. 4.9 (iii), Motor Vehicles Rules‑Offence.
Salamatullah for Appellant.
Secretary R. T. A., Lahore.
ORDER
This is an appeal against R. T. A., Lahore's order suspending the appellant's route permit on Lyallpur‑Sialkot. route for a period of one month. The ground on which this action was taken was that the driver failed to produce either the route permit or registration certificate on demand. Actually the registration certificate had been submitted to the Registering‑ Authority in connection with the payment of token tax but it is admitted that the route permit (B part) was not produced by the driver on demand as required by rule 4.9 (iii). R. T. A's. order under section 60 has been challenged on the ground that the drivers failure‑to produce the B Part permit did not involve the breach of any condition either specified in subsection (3) of section 59 or in the permit. On behalf of R. T. A. it is contended that the B Part permit contains a condition that the permit whenever demanded by an Inspecting Officer must be produced. I have looked through the specimen form of Part B, Item (VI) of which contains certain conditions. But these conditions do not include the direction that the B Part permit must always be carried and produced on demand. The heading of the permit no doubt is summary to be exhibited on each vehicle". But this is just a descriptive heading and has not been incorporated in the conditions. So far therefore as breach of conditions of the permit is concerned the R. T. A. has no case for action under section 60. But the breach of rule 4.9 (iii) in respect of ' this omission is punishable under other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and action could have been initiated against the appellant there under. So far as section 60 is concerned it is inapplicable to the present case and the appeal is accepted.
K. M. A. Appeal accepted. Appeal accepted.