TRANSPORT LAW

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18192, 13 September 1933, Page 10

TRANSPORT LAW

AUTHORITY’S POWERS VARIATION OF CONDITIONS COURT UPHOLDS ACTION (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. The question of whether a transpor! licensing authority, when it considers ar i application for a renewal, can simply j grant or refuse the application, oi i whether it can add terms and conditions without giving notice to the licensee, was an important point decided in a ease which came before His Honor Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court ! to-day. I The case also raised the question of I the jurisdiction of the Transport Appeal j Board. • Hodscm’s Pioneer Motor Services, Limited, service car proprietors, of Wanganui, were tlie plaintiffs, and the members of the No. 5 Transport District Licensing Authority and the Transport Appeal Board were the defendants, i Mr. Justice Ostler, in 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 by the licensee. 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 that that really disposed of the plaintiff company’s other complaint. 1 “In my opinion,” said His Honor, , “the District Licensing Authority hjul jurisdiction, in renewing the 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 he, hut in my opinion the. intention of the Legislature in this respect sufficiently appears. “It is quite clear that the District Licensing Authority has power to impose conditions when originally granting a license. It is also clear that after the

original license had been granted, and while it- is still current, the District Licensing Authority lias power either to amend or revoke any terms or conditions which in its opinion are necessary in public interest. Thai being so, in my opinion, the action fails. “Tt seems to nie that the District Licensing Authority in considering whether it should grant a renewal, or Jio’w it should alter its terms, has acted in a judicial capacity, and, therefore,'if if proposes to make any alteration which is not discussed at the meeting at which objections are being heard, it will always he wise to give the parties affected notice of any alterations it proposes to make on its owff motion, and allowing the other party the opportunity of being heal'd if he objects.” . .