Maharaj Buses Ltd v Land Transport Authority [2018] FJLTAT 4; Appeal 10.2017 (6 April 2018)

Land Transport Appeals Tribunal
Sitting @ Suva.

Appeal # 10 of 2017 &
11 of 2017.

--------------------------------------------------------------
10 of 2017

Between: Maharaj Buses Limited

Appellant

And: Land Transport Authority
Respondent

Shankar Singh Transport Limited

Pacific Transport Limited

Taunovo Buses Limited
Shore Buses Limited
Interested Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------
11 of 2017

Between: Taunovo Buses Limited
Appellant

And: Land Transport Authority
Respondent

Shankar Singh Transport Limited

Maharaj Buses Limited
Pacific Transport Limited
Shore Buses Limited

Interested Parties

--------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 9^th February 2018

--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances and Representations

For Maharaj Buses : Mr Mohammed Afzal Khan.
For Taunovo Buses : Mr Filimoni Vosarogo.
For LTA : Ms Vinaya Naisilasila.
For Shankar Singh : Mr Ramesh Prakash.
Pacific Transport : Not Present – No Representation.
Shore Buses : Not Present – No Representation.

Judgment

Introduction

The two matters are related and are appeals against the same decision of the Land Transport Authority (LTA). The parties agreed to a consolidated hearing. The Tribunal has noted that the Secretary to the Tribunal has served all the parties.

On 25^th August 2016, the LTA Board resolved to approve an application for amendment of RRL 12/10/102 for additional trips by Shankar Singh Transport, subject to the departure times in the proposed timetable being varied. The decision of LTA is contained in a letter dated 7^th February 2017.

The Grounds of Appeal

In Action Number 10 of 2017 (Appeal filed by Maharaj Buses Limited) the grounds of appeal are as follows:

“1. THAT the appellant’s Solicitors Messrs Khan & Co had written a letter to the Board dated 2^nd August 2016 for the meeting on 4^th of August 2016 to be deferred as the appellant was attending another matter at Suva High Court.

2. THAT the letter was received by your good office on the 3^rd of August 2016. Annexed hereunto marked “A” is a copy of the letter.
   
3. THAT despite giving a notice to the Board for the meeting to be deferred, the Board preceded with the meeting which resulted in the appellant being prejudiced and which amounts to denial of natural justice.
   
4. THAT the appellant had also made an application for the Amendment of Road Route Licence RRL 12/10/101.
   
5. THAT the appellant’s application is pending from 2002, which is yet to be determined before the Board whereas the application made by Shankar Singh Transport which was made in 2015 was heard by the Board.
   
6. THAT the appellant was also an objector in this application by Shankar Singh Transport.
   
7. THAT the appellant was not informed of the date of hearing for Shankar Singh Transport’s application therefore the appellant could not be present as an objector.
   
8. THAT the Board had proceeded with the meeting despite receiving the letter for the meeting to be deferred.
   
9. THAT the Board did not approve Shankar Singh Transport’s original application for the Amendment of Road Route Licence RRL 12/10/102 dated 17th February 2015.
   
10. THAT the Board has approved extra trips to Shankar Singh Transport which were not applied for in their initial application.
    
11. THAT the trip for 11:30 am departing Suva to Navua is a direct confrontation/ duplication with the appellant’s trip which starts at the same time for Shankar Singh Transport.
    
12. THAT as a result of this direct confrontation/duplication for the 11.30 am trip the appellant is subjected to issues with the parking base as this base is now shared between the appellant’s bus company (Maharaj Buses Limited) and Shankar Singh Transport.
    
13. THAT in the appellant’s initial application the appellant had applied for a trip at 5:40 pm which is yet to be approved whereas Shankar Singh Transport had applied for the same trip at 5:35 pm which the Board had approved. Thus the decision is unjustified/unfair and contrary to the rules of fair justice.
    
14. THAT the appellant had applied for the trips at 3:30 pm and 8:15 pm which is yet to be heard by the Board, however these trips have been approved for Shankar Singh Transport.
    
15. THAT Shankar Singh Transport in its initial application have not applied for the trips at 7:30pm and 8:00 pm however the Board had approved these trips.