Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: THE JHANG, SAYAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, JHANG VS Respondent: R. T. A. LAHORE
P L D 1960 W
P L D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 41
Before M. W. Abbasi, Member Board of Revenue,
West Pakistan
THE JHANG‑SAYAL TRANSPORT COMPANY,
JHANG‑Appellant
versus
R. T. A. LAHORE‑Respondent
Appeal No. 34 of 1959‑60, decided on 14th March 1960, District Lahore.
Route permit‑Permits cancelled as service of permit‑holder was irregular‑Permit‑holder hawing that service was irregular because road was closed to traffic‑Permits restored.
Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.
ORDER
The appellant Company had two permits for Jhang‑Khushab route. They were cancelled by R. T. A. Lahore on the 26th October 1959, on the ground that their service had been persis tently irregular.
The brief history of the case is that as a result of the checking of their record in March 1959, their service was found irregular. Their service was later dislocated and disrupted on account of floods. Then R. T. A. issued them a warning on the 24th August 1959 saying that as their performance could not be watched on account of the dislocation of service because of the floods, they were being given a period of one month from the end of August 1959 to put their service on a regular basis, failing which their case would be reconsidered by the Authority. In October their record was again checked and found irregular and the order of cancellation was passed on the 26th October 1959.
The appellant Company, however, has filed two important documents, one being a certificate issued by the P. W. D. Overseer dated 19‑11‑1959, which says that the road between miles 60‑84 remained closed to traffic during the period, 3‑7‑` 1959 to 20‑10‑59 due to heavy floods in the river Jhelum l the other being a certificate from the officers of the Flood department saying practically the same thing and giving some credit to the appellant‑Company for helping the P. W. D. in early restoration of traffic on this road. The Revenue Assistant who is also a Magistrate 1st Class has stated in his report that the road was closed to traffic for nearly three months and it was only about the last week of October that the route became fit for regular service and that the Jhang‑Sial Transport Company had been plying their service regularly since the re‑opening of the road. Secretary R. T. A. does not regard these certificates as reliable, but I find no ground on which to impugned their veracity. These reports emanate from two different quarters which were directly concerned with this matter on the spot and unless there are strong grounds to suspect their bona fides, I cannot just brush them aside. I, therefore, find that the Company cannot be held responsible or penalized for irregular service during the greater part of October.
From the comments received from R. T. A. it appears under para. 5 (e) that the permits were cancelled for their performance in March 1959, although now R. T. A. seems to have shifted its ground and brought up their record for October as a ground for cancellation. As far as March 1959 is concerned R. T. A. had already condoned the offence of the appellant company when it gave them a warning and a period of one month for restoring their service on a regular basis after the floods. Therefore, the order of cancellation cannot now be justified for their service during the month of March 1959.
If cancellation was not justified on the basis of their March 1959, record which had in effect been condoned by the R. T. A. and if their service in October was irregular or unsatisfactory because of the floods, the order impugned in appeal cannot stand. I would, in consequence, accept the appeal, set aside the order of the R. T. A. and restore the two permits of the appellant Company.
K. M. A. Appeal accepted.