1. Dispute over the granting of an exclusive road service licence under the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance regarding the counting of licences for overlapping routes. (Para 1 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1946 Supreme(SC) 19
Privy Council At Ceylon
Sir John Beaumont, Lord Du Parcq , Justice Lord Macmillan, JJ.
Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. Ltd. Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co. -Appellant
Versus
Colombo-Ratnapura Omnibus Co.Ltd., -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 90 of 1945
Decided On : 07-05-1946
Important Points
The court distinguished between a "highway" (the physical road) and a "route" (the travel line between two termini). A licence for a longer route does not count as a licence for a shorter route contained within it for the purpose of statutory preference.
Subject
Administrative Law - Licensing
Act Referred
Motor Car Ordinance (45 [XLV] of 1938): S.29(1), S.43(2)(a), S.45(1)(a), S.47, S.48(1), S.50, S.52, S.51(1), S.57(1), S.116, S.54
Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance (17 [XLVII] of 1942): S.2(1), S.3(1)(a), S.4, S.5, S.6, S.7(1), S.18
Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance (17 [XLVII] of 1942): S.2(1), S.3(1)(a), S.4, S.5, S.6, S.7(1), S.18
Headnote
(A) Motor Car Ordinance (45 [XLV] of 1938) and Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance (17 [XLVII] of 1942) - Schedule 1, Paragraph 1 - Interpretation of "route" versus "highway" - Determination of preference for granting exclusive road service licences - Whether licences for a longer route encompassing a shorter route should be counted as licences for the shorter route for the purpose of statutory preference. (Para 8)
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Distinction between "route" and "highway" - A "highway" is the physical track along which a vehicle runs, whereas a "route" is an abstract conception of a line of travel between one terminus and another. The two terms are not synonymous and are not used interchangeably in the legislation. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Two parties applied for an exclusive road service licence for a specific route. Under the applicable legislation, preference was to be given to the applicant who held the majority of existing licences for that route or a route substantially the same. The respondent held the greater number of licences strictly confined to the specific route in question. However, the appellant held a greater number of licences if those covering a longer route, which included the specific route as a segment, were taken into account.
Findings of Court:
The court held that a licence for a longer route is not a licence for a shorter route contained within it. The essence of a route for which a licence is granted is that it runs from one specific terminus to another to ensure service between those two points. Consequently, licences for a longer route cannot be reckoned as licences for the shorter route for the purpose of determining preference under the ordinance.
Issues: Whether a licence for an omnibus on a longer route is considered a licence authorising the use of the omnibus on a shorter route, provided the whole of the shorter route is covered by the longer route, for the purpose of determining preference under Schedule 1 of the Amending Ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that "route" and "highway" are distinct concepts. While a highway is the physical road, a route is defined by its termini. A licence granted for a route between two distant termini does not constitute a licence for a shorter route between intermediate points, as the licence is intended to ensure service between the specified termini. (Para 8)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Distinction between "route" and "highway" - A "highway" is the physical track along which a vehicle runs, whereas a "route" is an abstract conception of a line of travel between one terminus and another. The two terms are not synonymous and are not used interchangeably in the legislation. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Two parties applied for an exclusive road service licence for a specific route. Under the applicable legislation, preference was to be given to the applicant who held the majority of existing licences for that route or a route substantially the same. The respondent held the greater number of licences strictly confined to the specific route in question. However, the appellant held a greater number of licences if those covering a longer route, which included the specific route as a segment, were taken into account.
Findings of Court:
The court held that a licence for a longer route is not a licence for a shorter route contained within it. The essence of a route for which a licence is granted is that it runs from one specific terminus to another to ensure service between those two points. Consequently, licences for a longer route cannot be reckoned as licences for the shorter route for the purpose of determining preference under the ordinance.
Issues: Whether a licence for an omnibus on a longer route is considered a licence authorising the use of the omnibus on a shorter route, provided the whole of the shorter route is covered by the longer route, for the purpose of determining preference under Schedule 1 of the Amending Ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that "route" and "highway" are distinct concepts. While a highway is the physical road, a route is defined by its termini. A licence granted for a route between two distant termini does not constitute a licence for a shorter route between intermediate points, as the licence is intended to ensure service between the specified termini. (Para 8)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
transport law
-
road service licensing
- statutory interpretation (Para 8)
-
road service licensing
-
transport law
Advocates Appeared:
A.L. Bryden and Co., Braune, Buckeridge , B.K. Handoo, L.M.D. de Silva , Sir Cyril Radcliffe, Stanley De Zoysa, D.N. Pritt
A.L. Bryden and Co., Braune, Buckeridge , B.K. Handoo, L.M.D. de Silva , Sir Cyril Radcliffe, Stanley De Zoysa, D.N. Pritt
Table of Contents
2. Whether licences for routes covering a specific section and extending beyond its termini should be reckoned as licences for that specific route. (Para 1 , 7 , 8 )
3. The court distinguished between a highway as a physical track and a route as an abstract conception of travel between specific termini. (Para 8 )
4. A licence for a route extending beyond the termini of another route does not constitute a licence for that specific shorter route. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 8 )
6. What is the legal distinction between a route and a highway in the context of omnibus licensing?
A highway is the physical track along which an omnibus runs, whereas a route is an abstract conception of a line of travel between one terminus and another, distinct from the highway traversed. (Para 8 )
7. Does a licence for a longer route that encompasses a shorter route count as a licence for that shorter route for preference purposes?
No. A licence for a route extending beyond the termini of a specific route is not a licence for that specific route, as it may not provide a reliable service between those specific termini. (Para 8 )
Sir John Beaumont.-
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ceylon dated 21st June 1943, reversing a majority decision of the Tribunal of Appeal constituted under the Motor Car Ordinance (45 [XLV] of 1938) which had affirmed an order of the Commissioner of Motor Transport, dated 13th January 1943, granting to the appellant and refusing the respondent an exclusive road service licence under the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance (17 [XLVII] of 1942) for the route from Colombo to Ratnapura. The question at issue is whether the appellant or the respondent at the material date held the greater number of licences authorising the use of omnibuses on the route Colombo to Ratnapura, and the answer to that question depends upon whether the only licences to be reckoned under the relevant legislation are those confined to the route Colombo to Ratnapura as the respondent contends, or whether licences covering the whole of that route and also some further distances beyond Colombo or Ratnapura or both are to be reckoned, as the appellant contends.
[2] To determine this question it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Motor Car Ordinance (45 [xlv] of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as "the original ordinance") and the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance (47 [XLVII] of 1942) (hereinafter referred to as "the amending ordinance"). In sch. 1 to the latter ordinance occur the actual words which have to be construed. The original ordinance so far as relevant contains the following provisions. Section 29 (1) provides that no person shall possess or use a motor car for which a licence is not in force. Section 43 (2) (a) provides that every applicant for a licence for an omnibus shall specify in his application particulars of the route or routes on which it is proposed to provide a service under the licence. Under S. 45 (1) (a) every licensing authority shall forward to the Commissioner every application received by that authority for a licence for an omnibus, together with a recommendation upon the application. Under S. 47, the Commissioner in deciding whether an application for a licence for an omnibus should be granted or refused, has to consider amongst other things whether by reason of the length of the proposed route or routes or the extent of the area covered thereby, the service under the licence will be efficient and likely to provide adequately for the needs of the public. Under S. 48 (1) where, upon an application for a licence for an omnibus, the Commissioner decides that the licence should be granted, he has to determine the route or routes in respect of which licences may be issued. Section 50 provides for an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner to the Tribunal of Appeal of which the constitution and powers are defined by the ordinance. Under S. 52 the Commissioner is required to communicate to each licensing authority his decision upon applications made to him. Section 51 (1) is important and is in the following terms; ''Every licensing authority shall specify on every licence for an omnibus issued by that authority (a) the approved route or routes on which that omnibus may ply or stand for hire, and the number, if any, assigned to each route under S. 57; (b) the two places which shall be the termini of each such route; and (c) the highway or the several highways to be followed by the omnibus in proceeding from one terminus to the other." Under S. 57 (1) the Commissioner may classify and number, in such manner as may be convenient, the approved routes in respect of which licences for omnibuses are issued, and he is required to publish in the Gazette a list of the routes so classified and numbered. Section 116 makes it an offence for an omnibus to ply or stand for hire on any route other than an approved route specified on the licence of that omnibus or which, starting from one terminus of an approved route fails to complete a journey along that route to the other terminus except
