Fernando V. The Commissioner Of Motor Transport

 

1941     Present: de Kretser J.

 

FERNANDO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR TRANSPORT.

 

In re CASE STATED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE MOTOR CAR ORDINANCE.

 

Omnibus-Application for licence for bus along a proposed route-Right of Commissioner to refuse licence-Route previously plied by same bus- Congestion of traffic-Power of licensing authority-Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, ss. 45 (2), 46 (2), and 47.

 

The commissioner of Motor Transport may not on the ground of congestion of traffic refuse a licence to an omnibus on a proposed route if it is a route along which the applicant has previously plied the same omnibus.

 

The licensing authority may not refuse to renew a licence except on the grounds mentioned in section 45 (2) of the Motor Car Ordinance.

 

The discretion of the Commissioner is expressly limited to a considera­tion of the matters set out in section 47.

 

THIS was a case stated in the Supreme Court by the Tribunal of Appeal under Section 4 of the Motor Car Ordinance. H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him L. A. Rajapakse), for the applicant. H. H. Basnayake, C.C., for Commissioner of Motor Transport.

 

Cur. adv. vult.

 

 June 24, 1941. DE KRETSER J.-

 

Section 4 of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, provides for Tribunals of Appeal and sub-section 6 thereof makes the decision of a Tribunal final but provides for a case being stated on a question of law for the opinion of the Supreme Court. It is enacted that the stated case shall set forth the facts and the decision of the Tribunal, and the Supreme Court is authorised to hear and determine any question of law arising on any stated case and to remit its opinion to the Tribunal. It will be noted that this Court is required to determine not the question of law stated but any question of law arising on a stated case, and that it is not only the bare question of law which is transmitted but the stated case must set forth the facts and the decision of the Tribunal.

 

A statement of fact should include the decision given by the Com­missioner from whose order the appeal had been taken. In the case before me, the Commissioner's decision was not transmitted but it was available and was handed up to me and I gathered from it that the Com­missioner had refused to allow the motor omnibus in question to use the section of the route from Peradeniya into Kandy on the ground of congestion of traffic.

 

The case stated is as follows :

 

" Whether the Commissioner or the Appeal Tribunal is precluded from refusing to licence any omnibus which admittedly had a licence and plied for a number of years on the route applied for on the ground, urged on the appellant's behalf, that such an omnibus does

Click Here to Read the rest of this document