United Bus Co., Ltd. V. Kandy Town Bus Co., Ltd.

[IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL]

1951 Present : Lord Simonds, Lord Normand and Lord Oaksey

UNITED BUS CO., LTD., Appellant, and KANDY TOWN

 BUS CO., LTD., Respondent

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL NO. 32- OF 1950

S. C. Application No. 29-Case stated under- section 4 of the Motor Car

Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938

Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, No. 47. of: 1942-Application- for exclusive-road service licence-Competing claims-Error of fact-Right, of Supreme-Court to review decision of Commissioner-Sections 2. (1), 3 (1) (a), 4, 7, 8, 13 (1) (8), 14 (1)-Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of. 1938, s. 4.

Appellant applied for a road service licence in respect of. a route which was substantially identical with that applied for by the respondent. At the time-when the applications were made both applicants were operating omnibus-services over part of the route for which they applied. The Supreme Court, upon a case stated, declared that the issue, by the Commissioner, of the licence to the appellant for the new road service was contrary to an express direction.' contained in Section 7 of the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance. The judgment of the Supreme Court was, however, founded upon an inadvertent misunderstanding that the existing licence of the respondent involved two routes, when, in fact, the respondent was operating one route only.

Held, that the judgment was vitiated by- the error of fact as to the extent of the route already used by the respondent.

Held further, (i) that a decision of the Commissioner to grant or withhold a licence is essentially an exercise of an administrative discretion vested in him, and unless it can be shown that it is vitiated by irregularity or by error of fact or law, the Supreme Court is not entitled to review it either by the provisions of section 13 (8) of the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance or otherwise.

(ii) that in the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance there is no requirement that a decision of the Commissioner should take the form of a reasoned document. There may, however, be circumstances in which1 some elaboration of the Commissioner's grounds for his decision is advisable'.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in (1949) 51 N. L. R. 153.

D. N. Pritt, K.C., with R. K. Handoo, for the appellant.

 Ralph Millner, with T. 0. Kellock, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 2, 1951. [Delivered by LORD NORMAND]-

This is an appeal, by special leave, from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Ceylon reversing a decision of the Tribunal of Appeal constituted" under the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, which had affirmed a

decision of the Commissioner of Motor Transport, granting the appellant's application made under the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, No. 47 of 1942, for an exclusive road service licence to operate a regular service of omnibuses on a route connecting the town of Kandy with certain outlying regions and refusing a substantially similar application by the respondent.

The contention for the appellant is that the judgment of the Supreme Court was founded on an error of fact as to the extent of a route already used for the purpose of omnibus services provided by the respondent.

The Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, No. 47 of 1942, regulates the issue of licences for omnibus services, and the relevant provisions of the Ordinance are-

" 2. (1) No omnibus shall, on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-three, be used on any highway for the conveyance of passengers for fee or reward, except under the authority of a road service licence issued by the Commissioner of Motor Transport under this Ordinance.

" 3. (1) Every application for a road service licence shall be made to the Commissioner in such form as the Commissioner may provide for the purpose, and shall contain-

" (a) particulars of the route or rou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document