Maharaj Buses Ltd v Land Transport Authority [2018] FJLTAT 7; Appeal 43.2016 (11 May 2018)

Land Transport Appeals Tribunal
Sitting @ Suva.

Appeal # 43 of 2016.

Between: Maharaj Buses Limited

Appellant

And: Land Transport Authority
Respondent

Taunovo Bus Company Limited

Shankar Singh Transport Limited

Pacific Transport Limited

Interested Parties

--------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 6^th April 2018

--------------------------------------------------------------

Appearances and Representations

For Maharaj Buses : Mr Mohammed Afzal Khan.
For Taunovo Buses : Mr Filimoni Vosarogo.
For LTA : Mr Gabriel Stephens.
For Shankar Singh : Mr Ramesh Prakash.
Pacific Transport : Mr Ramesh Prakash.

Judgment

Introduction

On 25^th August 2016, the LTA Board resolved to approve an application by Taunovo Bus Company Limited for amendment of RRL 12/10/17 for the Navua Town/Navua Hospital/Wainadoi and return route. The decision of LTA is contained in a letter dated 6^th October 2016 as follows:

“....a. That Management to vary the proposed timetable as per timetable as per Composite Timetable and Management Report presented to Board.

2. Please note that variations have been carried out accordingly in accordance with the Management Composite and Management Report.”

The Grounds of Appeal

The amended grounds of appeal filed by the Appellants are as follows:

“1. THAT I had also made an application for the Navua Hospital trip which is yet to be advertised.

2. THAT my application is pending and yet to be determined before the Board.

3. THAT I am the objector in this application for Taunovo Bus Company Limited.

4. THAT I was not informed of the date of hearing for Taunovo Bus Company Limited application therefore I could not be present as an objector.

5. THAT I had received a letter dated 6^th October 2016 on my postal address which was stamped and posted by the Authority on the 20th of October that Taunovo Bus Company Limited have [been] granted the RRL.

6. THAT due to the negligence of the Authority I have received the letter on the 30^th of October 2016.

7. THAT the authority failed to properly consider the effect on passengers residing in the area due to lack of public transportation that had been proposed.