Back
W.H. BUS CO. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR TRANSPORT et al.
NLR51V118
1949 Present : Gratiaen J.
W. H. BUS CO., LTD., Petitioner, and COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR TRANSPORT et al.,
Respondents
S. .C. 480-APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ON THE COMMISSIONER
OF MOTOR TRANSPORT
Writ of
certiorari-Omnibus-Application for renewal of route licence- Privilege of
operating on old licence pending determination-In what circumstances
available-Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, No. 47 of 1942-Proviso to section
10.
The statutory privilege conferred by the proviso to section 10 of the Service
Licensing Ordinance is not available to the holder of a licence which has
already expired at the time its "renewal " is for.
THIS
was an application for a writ of certiorari on the Commissioner of Motor
Transport. The petitioner sought in this application to annual the decision of
the Commissioner of Motor Transport to grant to the second respondent certain
licences for the various routes, on which the petitioner's omnibuses had
previously operated.
N. E. Weerasooriya, K.C., with C. E. S. Perera and M. P. Spencer for the
petitioner.
M. Tiruchelvam, Crown Counsel, for the 1st respondent.
F. A. Hayley, K.C., with H. W. Tambiah, for the 2nd respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 30, 1949. GRATIAEN
J.-
The petitioner is the W. H. Bus Company, Ltd., of Kandy. The-Company had up to
August 31, 1948, operated twelve omnibus services-along defined routes from
Kandy to various parts of the Central Province by virtue of licences issued in
its favour by the Commissioner of Motor Transport. On that date one of the
licences expired, and ten others were due to expire a month later. The twelfth
licence would, unless duly revoked by the licensing authority, have remained in
operation until October 31, 1949.
In terms of section 10 of the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance No. 47 of
1942, the authority of a licensee to operate an omnibus service-terminates on
the date of expiry of the licence subject to the privilege of continuing to
operate on the prescribed route for a limited period provided that an
application for renewal is made before the expiration of the licence.
The petitioner Company did not avail itself of the privilege conferred by the
provisions of section 10. It is common ground that at the relevant time there
had been much internal strife among the persons charged with the management of
its affairs, and the inevitable consequence was that its efficiency as a
business organisation considerably deteriorated. No application for a so-called
"renewal" of the eleven licences which had already expired was made until
October 26, 1948. In the meantime the omnibuses continued, but without legal
sanction, to operate along the routes. I cannot see, however, how official
condonation of this irregularity can be construed as conferring upon the Company
any additional rights. The Commissioner's powers in this respect are necessarily
restricted by the provisions of the Ordinance under which he is authorised to
function.
If the Company was dilatory in its business affairs, it can hardly be said that
the Commissioner's office was any less lethargic in its attention to official
correspondence. The application for a " renewal " of the expired route licences
was received on October 26, 1948. No reply seems to have been sent to the
Company for nine months. On July 26, 1949, the Commissioner wrote to state that
although he was vested
with a discretion by the
regulations passed under the Ordinance to accept and deal with an application
for renewal received after the time limit prescribed by the regulations (namely,
eight weeks before expiration of the existing licence), he did not propose to do
so in the present case because the petitioner's omnibus service had proved
unsatisfactory in the past. He decided instead to treat the application as an
application for new licences, and to consider it on its merits in competitio
