069-NLR-NLR-V-51-HINNIAPPUHAMY-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-OF-MOTOR-TRANSPORT-Respondent.pdf
‘280 NAGALINGAM J.—llinniappnhamy v. Commissioner of Motor Transport
Present: Hagalingam J.
I-IINNIAPPUHAMY, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER OF MOTORTRANSPORT, Respondent-.
S. C. 40—Cfl.se stotrd for the opinion of the .Supreme Court undersection 4 ('/) of Oidin>tn:e No. 10 W 1948
Motor Car Ordinance., A'o. <f-5 of J'J3S—Case stated for opinion of Supreme Court—
Requirement of proof of compliance with provisions of section 1 (6) (e).
By section 4 (0)(c) of t.ho Motor Car Ordinance. No. 45 of 1938. tho duty iscast u|k>ii tilt party requiring a case to be stated for the opinion of the SupremeCourt (I) to send to the other party notice in writing of the fact that the casehas been stated on his application, and (2) to supply that other party with acopy of tho stated case.
Held, that bofore the Court could enter upon a consideration of the cosestated there must he proof before it. that the appellant attended to therequirements of section 4 (6) (c).
N'AGALLNGAM J.—Hinnioppuhamy v. Commissioner of Motor Transport 281
n
V^ASK stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court under section 4 (6)of Ordinance No. 45 of 1938.
No appearance for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 24, 1950. Nagaungam J.—
This is a case stated for the opinion of this court under section 4 (0)of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938. The party at whose instancethis case has been stated is the appellant before the Tribunal of Appealwho will hereafter in this order be referred to as the appellant. TheCommissioner of Motor Transport refused to renew the licences in respectof five lorries of the appellant, and the tribunal on appeal affirmed theorder of the Commissioner; and by means of these proceedings the appel-lant seeks to tost, the soundness oi the principles of lav applied by thetribunal in deciding his appeal.
Under section 4{6) (c) of the Ordinance the duty is east upon the party-requiring the case to bo stated (1) to send to the other party notice inwriting of the fact that the case has been stated on his application aud(2) to supply that other party with a copy of the stated case. Thissub-section further prescribes the period within which these steps shouldbe taken. It enacts that, these acts should be done “ at or More thelime ” when the stated case is transmitted to this court.
In this case, as stated earlier, it is the appellant wh • has had the casestated for the opinion of this court, but there is nothing in the papersfiled to indicate that the appellant haR in point of fact complied with theprovisions of the sub-section. The Commissioner, who would be theother party to these proceedings, has not appeared. This may verywell be due to the fact that he has received no intimation of the transmis-sion of the papers to this court. The appellant, too, has not appearedcither in person or by Counsel to assist this Court, and there is thereforea total lack of information as to whether tho provisions of the sub-sectionhave been complied with by the appellant. There must be proof beforethe Court that the appellant has attended to the requirements of section4 (ft) (c) before it can enter upon a consideration of the case stated forits opinion and the proof should be furnished cither when the case stated' is forwarded to this Court or at any rate when the matter comes on forconsideration. In this caoe proof was furnished neither at the time thepapers were filed nor at the time the matter came up for hearing.
The only other question is whether the court should direct the issueof a notice even at this stage. In view* of the express terms of the sub-section, I do not think it justifiable to order a notice on the other partysubsequent to the case statod having been transmitted to this Court.
In this state of tho facts I reject the case stated as the appeltaut hasfailed to satisfy this Court that the other party has been duly noticed ofthese proceedings.
Case stated rejerted.