108-NLR-NLR-V-51-EDWIN-PERERA-Appellant-and-WEERAKKODY-S.-I.-Police-Respondent.pdf
452
GCNASEKARA J.—Edwin Perera v. Wterakk-ody [. Police)
1950Present: Gunasekara J.
EDWIN PEHERA, Appellant, and WEERAKKODV(S. I. Police), Respondent
.S'. C. 1,284—M. C. Colombo, 5. 24,231
Motor Car Ordinance—Route, of lorry between two termini—No particular highwaymentioned in licence—-Use of lorry not restricted to the shortest of the severalhighways between the termini—Distinction between "route ” and '• highway ”—Ordinance No. 45 of 1938, Sections 54 (!) and (2), 116 (2), 158.
Whore the routo specified for a lorry is defined solely by reference to itsterminal points and the licoitce doos not show that the authority which specifiedtho routo intended that the lorry should travol only along a particular highwayor highways, botwoen the terminal points, it is not a breach of section116 (2) of the Motor Car Ordinance to use tho lorry on any one of severalhighways between tho termini, although such highway does not lio in theshortest practicable route between tho termini.
A
XXPPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate s Court, Colombo.
.S’. C. E. Rodrigo, for accused appellant.
A. E. Keuneman, Crown Counsol, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. wit.
July 25, 1950. Gunasekara J.—
The appellant was charged with having committed a breach of section116 (2) of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, punishabl© undersection 158, by driving a lorry on a highway outside the area of operationspecified in tho licence for that lorry, lie was convicted after trialand sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 or oue month’s simple imprisonmentin default of payment of tho fine.
Tho area of operation specified in the liconco was Kegalla-Kandy-Nuwara Eliya Districts and routo Kegalla to Colombo”. The appellantwas found driving tho lorry at Kaduwcla on the Low Level Road fromAvissawella to Colombo, which is outside the districts of Kegalla, Kandyand Nuwara Eliya. Tho question is whether it is outside the “ routoKegalla to Colombo ”.
It is oontendod for the Crown that the appellant was allowed no choiceof highways between tho termini of the specified route but was restrictedto those lying in the shortest practicable route between Kegalla andColombo. The appellant admitted in evidence that the distance betweenthose plaooa is 42 miles along the Kandy Road and 60 along the roadthat he took. It is contended on his behalf, however, that he wasentitled to drive, tbn lorry along the Low Lovel Road because, althoughthe licence specified a route it did not specify any particular highwaysto bo followed in travelling between tho termini of the route; and hiscounsel relies on the distinction drawn between the terms “ highway ”and “ routo ” in The Kelani Valley Motor Transit Co., Ltd. v. The Colombo•Ratnapura Omnibus Co., Ltd.1
» (1946) 47 N. L. R. 271.
Wije.goone tear dene v. Kularatne
453
In that case the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said:
“ A 4 highway ’ is the physical track along which an omnibus runs,,whilst a 4 route ’ appears to their Lordships to be an abstract concep-tion of a line of travel between, one terminus and another, and to besomething distinct from the highway traversed …. TheCommissioner has to work out the routes on which a public transportservice is to be provided, and in doing so he may have to specifythe highway to be followed by the route since there may be alternativeroads leading from one terminus to another, but that does not makethe route and highway the same
The distinction is clearly recognized in section 54 (1) of the Ordinance,which provides with regard to omnibus licences that the licensingauthority shall specify (a) the approved route or routes, (6) the twoplaces which shall be the termini of each such route, and (e) the highwayor the several highways to be followed by the omnibus in proceedingfrom one terminus to the other. There is no ground for giving to theword 44 route ” a different meaning in sub-section (2) of the same section,where it requires the licensing authority to specify on a lorry licencethe approved area of operation and the additional service or services,if any, which may be provided under that licence Mid the route or routesto be followed for the purposes of each such service. It is open to theappropriate authority to define the route by reference to the roadswhich may be traversed or by reference to intermediate points as wellas to the terminal points of the route. In the present case the routehas been defined solely by reference to its terminal points and it seemsto me that the appellant’s contention must prevail. There is nothingon tho licence to show that the authority whiob specified the routeintended that the lorry should travel between the terminal points onlyalong a particular highway or highways. I set aside the convictionand sentence and I acquit the appellant.
Appeal allowed.