Peradeniya Service Bus Co.,Ltd. V. Sri Lanka Omnibus Co.,Ltd.

[IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL]

1952 Present: Lord Porter, Lord Reid, Lord Asquith of Bishopstone and
Sir Lionel Leach

PERADENIYA SERVICE BUS CO., LTD., Appellants, and
SRI LANKA OMNIBUS CO., LTD., Respondents

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1951

S. C. Application No. 28-Case stated under section 4 of the Motor
 Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938

Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, No. 47 of 1942, ss. 4, 6, 7-Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, s. 4 (6) (a) (b)-Issue of route licence-Factors to be considered- Case stated-May be sent back for amendment if necessary-Signature of Chairman alone sufficient.

Appellants, who were a Company holding a licence to run an omnibus service along a certain route, applied for a licence in respect of a further half mile between a terminus of their route and a point which fell on the route along which the respondent Company was operating an omnibus service. As against the respondent Company's competing claim to a licence along a route which would include the same half mile of road, it was proved that there was a public necessity for an omnibus service along the half mile in question and that the granting of a licence to the appellants would mean no overlapping of services, but merely the extension of their existing route to cover a small gap.

Held, that the appellants had the better claim to a licence, especially having regard to the provisions of section 7 of the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance of 1942.

Held further: (i) When a case stated by a Tribunal of Appeal under the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, and the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, No. 47 of 1942, is open to criticism from the point of view of draftsmanship, any defects therein may be remedied by sending it back to the Tribunal for amendment.

(ii) The fact that a case stated is signed only by the chairman, and not by all the members, of the Tribunal of Appeal is not a ground for its rejection.

(iii) It does not follow that because a person or a company is the sole applicant for a road service licence it should be granted. Other factors have to be considered, namely, those referred to in section 4 of the Ordinance of 1942.

APPEAL by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court which is reported in (1949) 51 N. L. R. 233.

Stephen Chapman, for the appellants.

No appearance for the respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

June 22,1952. [Delivered by SIR LIONEL LEACH]-

The appellants appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Ceylon, dated the 5th December, 1949, rejecting an appeal, by way of case stated, from a Tribunal of Appeal constituted under the Motor

Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, and the Omnibus Service Licensing Ordinance, No. 47 of 1942. The parties are motor omnibus companies operating in Ceylon and the appeal relates to the refusal of a road service licence applied for by the appellants. The respondents have not appeared and consequently their Lordships have not had the advantage of hearing counsel on their behalf, but they have been taken through the whole of the printed record and the questions which arise have been very clearly stated by the appellants' counsel.

Ordinance No. 45 of 1938 was passed by the Ceylon Legislature to amend and consolidate the law relating to motor cars and governed the use of omnibuses on highways in Ceylon until the passing of Ordinance No. 47 of 1942, which introduced an entirely new system with regard to the issue of licences. Under the earlier Ordinance the system was to license vehicles and this enabled different owners to run omnibuses for hire on the same route. It is said that this led to wasteful running, unnecessary overlapping of services and unhealthy competition. Under the later Ordinance the licence gave the licensee the exclusive right to provide an omnibus service for a particular route.

The issue of licences is placed in the hands of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document