TRANSPORT CONTROL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18191, 12 September 1933, Page 11

TRANSPORT CONTROL

AOTHORIHES' POWER SUPREME COURT ACTION

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Whether a transport licensing authority when it cort|4krs an application loi a renewal of aTEanse can supply 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 His Honor, Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court to-day. The case also raised the question of the jurisdiction of the Transport Appeal Board.

Hodsons’ Pioneer Motor Services, Limited, service car proprietors ot Wanganui, were the plaintiffs, and the members of the No. 5 Transport District Licensing Authority and the Transport Appeal Board were the defendants.

It was stated that when the company applied -for a renewal of its license m 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 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 oi services per day to be run by the company on week days each way between Wpuganui 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 decision of the defendants; (b) the 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 writ of prohibition against tlie Licensing Authority from giving effect to -the purported determination of the Transport Appeal ißoard; and (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.