Panadure Motor Transit Co., Ltd. V. Roberts, T.W. Et Al.

1947 Present: Nagalingam A.J.

PANADURE MOTOR TRANSIT CO., LTD., Petitioner, and
T. W. ROBERTS et. al., Respondents.

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A WRlT OF PROHIBITION ON
T. W. ROBERTS OF GALLE AND THREE OTHERS.

Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, No. 47 of 1942, Schedule I., :Dara. 2(a)Interpretation of-Right of persons to compensation for the loss of only a section of a route licence held by them.--Meaning of words" highways", "comprise", "include "-Writ of Prohibition-Stage at which application may be made.

Prior to the coming into operation of the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, No. 47 of 1942, the fourth respondent was the holder of 'a licence under the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, authorising the use of omnibuses on the route Bandaragama to Colombo via Pokunuwita Junction. After the coming into operation of the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance the petitioner company was granted the licence to ply omnibuses to;.' hire on the route from Panadure to Horana via Bandaragama and Pokunuwita Junction.

In an application for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition against the first, second and third respondents, who were constituted a Tribunal of Appeal under the Motor Car Ordinance of 1938, from proceeding further with an application made to them for compensation for loss of route rights as a result of the petitioner company having been granted a road service licence to run omnibuses on a route covering a section of the fourth respondent's route-

Held, that, on the proper interpretation of paragraph 2 (a) of the special provisions set out in the first schedule to the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance as amended by Ordinance No. 57 of 1943, the fourth respondent could not be regarded as the holder of a licence for an omnibus in respect of a route which comprised or included the same highways or substantially the same highways as those covered by the route for which the road service licence was issued to the petitioner company.

Held, further, that an application for a Writ of Prohibition may be made as soon as an issue is raised which it is beyond the province of the Tribunal of limited jurisdiction to determine.

APPLICATION for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition.

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him D. W. Fernando), for the petitioner.

S. E. J. Fernando, for the fourth respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

February 6,1947. ,NAGALINGAM A.J.-

This is an application for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition against the first, second and third respondents who are constituted a Tribunal of Appeal under the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, from proceeding further with an application made to them by the fourth respondent for compensation for loss of certain route rights as a' result of the petitioner company having been granted a road service licence to run omnibuses on a route covering the fourth respondent's route.

The facts which give rise to the present application are not in dispute and may be briefly stated as follows: Prior to the coming into operation of the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, No. 47 of 1942. the fourth respondent was the holder of a licence under the Motor Car Ordinance,

No. 45 of 1938, authorising the use of omnibuses on the route Bandaragama to Colombo via Pokunuwita Junction. The route is indicated in black in the sketch PI. After the coming into operation of the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance the petitioner company was granted the licence to ply omnibuses for hire on the route from Panadure to Horana via Bandaragama and Pokunuwita Junction after the petitioner company had delivered to the Commissioner of Motor Transport a written undertaking in terms of paragraph 2 (c) of the special provisions set out in the first schedule to the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance that the petitioner company would pay compensation to every person who would be entitled to claim compensation in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document