008-NLR-NLR-V-57-HEEN-BANDA-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-OF-MOTOR-TRAFFIC-et-al-Respondent.pdf
Present : Swan J.
HEENBANDA, Appellant, and COMMISSTOXER OFMOTOR TRAFFIC et al., Respondents
S. O'. 361—Appeal under Section 212 of the Motor Traffic Act froma decision of the Transport Appeals Tribunal, No. 3S-5
Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951—Refusal of public carrier's permit—Discretion ofCommissioner—Right of appeal to Supreme Court—“Question of law’’—Sections 90 and 212.
Tho Commissioner of Motor Traffic, acting on the report of the DivisionalHoad Transport Officer, refused an application for a public carrier’s permiton the ground that the area in question was well served. Tho Transport AppealsTribunal dismissed the applicant’s appeal for the same reason. Tho aoplicantthereupon appealed to the Supreme Court on tho ground that tho Commissioneracted contrary to the principles of natural justico in acting on the report oftho Divisional Boa'd Transport Officer without affording tho applicant anopportunity of disproving the statements in t he report.
'Held, that the ground of appeal was not a quest ion of law within the meahing
of sect ion 312 of tho Motor Traffic Act,'
^^.PPEAL. under section 212 of the Motor Traffic Act.
N. ill. de Silva, with C. de S. Siriu-ardene, for the appellant.
Mervyn Fernando, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Gur. adv. vnlt.
March 25, 1955. Swan J.—
In or about September 1953 the appellant made on application to the1st respondent above named for a Public Carrier’s Permit authorizingthe rise of a two ton lorry for an area of operation in the Central Province.After incpiiry the 1st respondent refused the application on the groundthat the area was well served. Thereafter the appellant restricted hisapplication to the Kandy District only. This application was alsorefused on the same ground. From this refusal the appellant appealedto the Transport Appeals Tribunal which made order dismissing theappeal. The ajjpeliant now asks this Court to set aside the order of theTransport Appeals Tribunal and of the 1st respondent, and direct the1st respondent to issue to the appellant a Public Carrier’s Permit asapplied for.
.Section 212 of the Motor Traffic Act gives a right of appeal to theSupreme Court against the decision of the Tribunal only on a question oflaw. The point of law relied on in the petition of appeal is that the 1strespondent acted contrary to the principles of natural justice in acting onthe report of the Divisional Road Transport Officer without affording theappellant an opportunity of meeting or disproving the statements in thereport. Conceding however that the Commissioner was entitled to act onthe report it is submitted that he acted wrongly in not allowing theappellant an opportunity of meeting the same.
Section 90 of the Motor Traffic Act gives the Commissioner “ full powerand discretion to make a determination either to grant or refuse anapplication It would render that discretion nugatory if it could becanvassed by the pretence of an appeal on a point of law.
The Commissioner refused the application on the ground that thearea was well served. The Transport Appeals Tribunal dismissed theappellant’s appeal for the same reason. I can see no point of law on whichthe appellant can appeal to this Court.
Tho appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.