Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BODLA TRANSPORT CO. LTD. VS Respondent: HASAN TURAB ALIHonorable Justice MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI
1969 S C M R 139
1969 S C M R 139
Present: Hamoodur Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ
C. P. S. L. A. No. 298 of 1968
BODLA TRANSPORT Co. LTD., SAHIWAL Petitioner
versus
HASAN TURAB ALI, C. S. P., MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN. LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents
AND
C. P. S. L. A. 350 of 1968
AMIR BUS SERVICE SAHIWAL‑Petitioner
versus
THE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND OTHERS Respondents
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 298 and 350 of 1968, decided on 1st November 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan Lahore, dated the 25th May and 15th August 1968, in Writ Petitions Nos. 825 and 1171 of 1968, respectively).
West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)---
---S. 121 (2}‑Limitations imposed on powers of appellate authority, question of‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court.
C. P. S. L. A. No. 298 of 1968
M. Ismail Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wajid Hussain Syed, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
AND
C. P. S. L. A. No. 350 of 1968
Muhammad Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 1st November 1968.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑This will dispose of Civil Petitions for. Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 298 and 350 of 1968.
It is contended that on comparison with the other applicants and for good and cogent reasons the Regional Transport Authority granted two route permits on Sahiwal‑Chichawatni Lyallpur route to each of the petitioner‑company, but the Member, Board of Revenue, misread the proceedings of the Authority in concluding that undue favour was shown to the first‑named petitioner, and that the second‑named petitioner, did not own any bus. Attention is drawn to the comments of the Authority in which it is mentioned that route permits were granted to the Amir Bus Service on the production of registration certificates of three new buses. Similarly the proceedings of the Authority indicate that the case of Niaz Bus Service, Rehbar Bus Service, Pak. Bus Service and Traps‑Pak. Bus Service, the appellants before the Member, Board of Revenue, were examined by the Authority and they found grounds for refusing grant to each of them. Appellant No. 1 belonged to a different region while appellants Nos. 2 and 3 already held a large number of route permits. Grant of more permits to either would have led to creation of monopolies. Appellant No. 4 had bad record and poor past performance.
The conclusions drawn by the learned Judges in the High Court (i) that the order passed by the Authority was not itself a just and proper order, as the first‑named petitioner was granted four permits against a fleet of five buses ; and (ii) that the case of Rehbar Bus Service was equally compatible with the petitioner's case, are accordingly assailed as being contrary to the record.
Reliance is also placed on the limitations imposed by' section 121 (2) of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicle Ordinance on the powers of the appellate authority which have not been kept in view.
Leave to appeal is granted in both the petitions. Security Rs. 1,000 each. Early steps to be taken to get the appeals ready for hearing in the second week of December 1968. Stay to continue, but in case of default on the part of the appellants in getting the appeals ready the stay orders will be vacated.
Leave granted.