TRANSPORT SERVICE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22057, 13 September 1933, Page 8

TRANSPORT SERVICE

CONDITION ADDED TO LICENSE POWERS OF AUTHORITY UPHELD (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September ' 12. Whether a transport district licensing authority, when it considers an application for the renewal of a license, can .simply grant or refuse the application or whether it can add terms and conditions without giving notice to the licensee, was an important point raised in a case which came before Mr Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court to-day. The case also raised the question of the jurisdiction of the Transport Appeal Board. Hodson’s Pioneer Motor Services, Ltd., service car proprietors, of Wanganui, were the plaintiffs and members of the No. 5 Transport District Licensing Authority and the Transport Appeal Board were the defendants. It was stated tlmt when the company applied for a renewal of its license in February the licensing authority proceeded of its own motion to add a new term and condition —namely, that each run was to be restricted to only one car without giving the company notice of its intention as required by the provisions of the Act and without giving the company an opportunity of being heard on the matter. Subsequently the Railways Board appealed to the Transport Appeal Board, as a result of which the number of services per day to be run by the company on week days, each way, between Wanganui and New Plymouth, was reduced from four to two. It was claimed that the Transport Appeal Board was not authorised by the provisions of the Act to hear such an application nor to give such a decision or determination.

The company sought—(a) a writ of injunction restraining the No. 5 Authority from calling in the company’s license and giving effect to the purported determination of the Transport Appeal Board; (b) the issue of a writ of certiorari against the defendant’s quashing or setting aside that part of the No. 5 District Licensing Authority’s decision amending the terms and conditions of the company’s license and for the purpose also of quashing or setting aside the Transport Appeal Board’s purported decision varying the terms' and conditions of the license or, alternatively, that both decisions be quashed and set aside or otherwise dealt with by the court; (c) the issue of a write of prohibition against the licensing authority from giving effect to the purported determination of the Transport Appeal Board; (d) the issue of a writ of mandamus against the licensing authority compelling it to issue to the plaintiff company a renewal of the passenger service license in accordance with its decision in May. Mr Justice Ostler, delivering judgment, said he could see no difficulty in determining that the Government Railways Board had power to appeal to the Transport Appeal Board to modify the decision of the district licensing authority by cutting down the number of daily trips allowed by the license. The appeal, in his opinion, was authorised by the Act, and that being so it seemed to him that the action so far as the Transport Appeal Board was concerned must fail. It seemed further that that really disposed of the plaintiff company’s other complaint. “ In my opinion,” his Honor said, “ a district licensing authority has jurisdiction, in renewing a passenger service license, to modify the terms and conditions upon which such license was originally granted. Admittedly, the matter is not as clear as it might be, but in my opinion the intention of the legislature in this respect sufficiently appears. It is quite clear that a district licensing authority has power to impose conditions when originally granting ti license. It is also clear that after the original . license has been granted and while it is still current a district licensing authority has power either to amend or revoke any of its terms or conditions which in its opinion are necessary in the public interest. That being so, in my opinion, the present action fails.

“It seems to me,” his Honor added, “that a district licensing authority, in considering whether it should grant a renewal or how it should alter its terms, is acting in a judicial capacity, and therefore if it proposes to make any alteration which is not discussed at a meeting at which objections are being heard, it will always be wise to give the parties affected notice of any alterations it proposes to make on its own motion and allow the other party an opportunity of being heard if he objects.”