TRANSPORT LICENSES

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 356, 13 September 1933, Page 2

TRANSPORT LICENSES

POWERS OF AUTHORITY QUESTIONED

Case Before Supreme Courf;

HODSON'S MOTOR CO. BRING ACTION Press Association.— Conyright.. Wellington, Sept. 12. Whether the transport district licensing authority when it considers an application for the renev/al 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. Hudson’s Pioneer Motor Services, Ltd., service car proprietors, Wanganui, were the plaintiffs and the members of 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 license in February the licensing authority proceeded of their own motion to add a new term and conditions, 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 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 application nor to give such decision or determination.

The company sought la) a writ of , injunction restraining No. 5 Authority from calling in the company’s license and giving effect to the purported deter- 1 mination of Transport Appeal Board; : (b) the issue of a writ of certiorari ■ against the defendants quashing or setting aside that part of No. 3 District : Licensing Authority’s decision amending i tlic terms and conditions of the com- j pany’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 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 is- i sue to the plaintiff - company a renewal < of the passenger service license in ac- J cordance with its decision in May. Mr. Justice Ostler, in delivering his judgment, said he could see no difficulty ; in determining that the Government Railways Board had the power to appeal ; to the Transport Appeal Board to mod- ( ify a decision of a district licensing auth- \ ority by cutting down the number of daily trips allowed by license.

The appeal in his opinion was author- I ised by the Act and, that being so, it seemed to him that the action, so far as i the Transport Appeal Board was con- ! cerned, must fail. It seemed that it ; really disposed of the plaintiff com- : pany’s other complaint. “In my opinion,” said the judge, “the \ district licensing authority had jurisdic- , tion in renewing the passenger service ] license to modify the terms and condi- 1 tions upon which such license was ori- j ginally granted. Admittedly the matter | is not as clear as it might be, but in my i opinion the intention of the legislature in i this respect sufficiently appears. t “It is quite clear that the district I licensing authority has power to impose j conditions when originally granting a 1 license. It is also clear that after the | original license has boon granted and '■ while it is still current the district licens- ; ing authority has power either to amend . or revoke any terms or conditions which ; in its opinion are necessary in the publie interest. That being so, in my opin- i ion the action fails. “It seems to me that the district licens- : ing authority, in considering whether it] should grant a renewal or how it should ! alter its terms, has acted in a judicial capacity and therefore, if it proposes to make any alteration which is not discussed at the 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 to allow the other party the opportunity of being heard if he objects.”