BATTLE FOR BUS ROUTES

Chronicle (Levin), 7 October 1947, Page 7

BATTLE FOR BUS ROUTES

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE V. STATE WELLINGTON, Oct. 6. The submission that in granting the j Railways Department . a lieenee to | establish a road service between Tai j hape and Rotorua when in fact the j applieatipn by the department was for I a through aerviee between Wellington j and Rotorua, No. 2 Transport j Authority had acted ultra vires of \ powers conferred by the Transport l Lieensing Act, 1931, was made on behalf of Hawke's Bay Motors, Ltd., by Mr. W. J. Sini, K.C., to the Lieens- | ing Appeal Authority, -Judge K. G j Archer. Alternatively, Mr. Sim urged that if the aetion of the authority was ] not ultra vires then there were certam | irregularities in the form of hearing : and the matter should be referred. bacK | to the authority for rehearing on . a fresh application by the department. for a licence to operate over the Waimarino-Taupo section. In appearing for Hawke's Bay Mr. Sim had with him Mr. B. W. Dorrington, Dannevirke. Mr. J. Wallace represented the Railways Department. Mr. Sim told the Court that the case was part of " a battle between private enterprise and the State for the middle ■ of the North Island". A further pliase . might be coming before the Court iu eonneGti5n with the Putaruru-Taupo ■ link on the ^uckiand-Taupo route. i Mr. Sim suggested that the wav the • department had planned to operate the i link would aetually mean it was runi ning a through bus service from Roto- • rua to Wellington that had been re- ■ ieeted by the authoritv. It was gain-

iri[r ils ovigjnal «wl 1>\ "ulitlpi menTm Evidence could be oli'ered that the Wanganui service with wliich that from Rotorua would link at Bulls, was always crowded and another bus would continue from there to Wellington as an extra bus on that section of the department 's Wanganui - W ellington service. The department had on ginally applied in 1911 for a licence over the Taihape-Taupo section but the application had been cancelled and an application for through service sub stituted, said Mr. Sim. The new application had come up for liearing at Marton without his clients and other interested parties being notilied as was customary. Becoining aware of it at the last liiinute tliey made application for and were granted an adjourninen: to prepare tlieir objections. In the hearings at Palmerston North all his client's case was directed against the application for a througli serviceand the case against granting the department a section licence was not present ed nor had the opportuuity been given for its presentation. At the Palmerston North sittings of the authority applications by his clients for the section and by Newman Bros. for a licence to run an extra bus-froiii Wellington to Palmerston North, together providing a one-day service between Wellington and lioto rua which the Tourist Department had approached tliem to establish for tourist traffic, were rejectech by the authority. Mr. -SLni submitted that fhe decision of the 'authority was ultra

vires in that it hau granted ' the department a licence for which it had not applied and the authority had acted in a manner contrary to the principles of natural justice in that his clients were uot, heard on a matter to which tliey were entitled. The Railways lius timetable cut out Nevvnian's Palmerston North- Wellington link which the authority had envisaged as part of th-Rotorua-Welliugton service, entirely, said Mr. Sim, and in his view New mans would have grounds for a writ of eertiorari against the department. His Honour: The Railways licence is to Palmerston North, isn't it? Have tliey no service from Palmerston North ro Wellington?

Mr. Sim : No. Newman 's hold that licence. I-Iis Honour; Tliev are apparently going to operate that service Avithout authorisation. His Honour said it appeaared that the departmeut 's timetable was nevei submitted to the other parties as was suggested in the authoritv 's sunimiiiy up. Mr. Walker, for the department, submitted that uuder sections 28 and 3U°f the Act the authority was acting witliin its rights in granting a licence for tlie section to the department. His Honour: You eannot surely sug gest that 'should be carried to the extent that he should so change the matter of his decision to prejudicn parties who had not beeu heard? Mr. Walker: The other parties were in tlieir applications for partial ser vices. His Honour said he could not agreo with Mr. Walker as to a wide applica timi of tJie sections. It seenied to him that the authority would liave to lie satislied that ir. was not an injustice to the other parties. Mr. Walker said the parties who might- be afl'ected had been before the authority and tlie authority wouM know the circumstaiices. He was. therefore justified. His Honour asked if there was anvthing on record to suggest that the department had changed its ground and had shown in evidence that it considered a coofdinated service sucli as that eventually granted, was un tatisfactory. He could find no sucli charge. Mr. Walker, in replv to his Honour, said the authoritv had rejected a through service .because it would be affecting other operators. It was admitted that a service via Bulls would compete with a service via Napier but it would not compete unfairly. The .Tudge said he was quite satisfied that the departmeut at no stage hau put forward a claim for a partial section. It was, in fact, the opposite of wliat it wanted as stressed in the evidence. The idea of giving it to thc Railways had originated in the niind of the authority. IMr. Rim: The authority has an originating mind. At one stage ht even had a tender mind for the department. Hi& Honour said he would mahe an order referring the issue of the licence back to the authority aud give his reasons in writing at a later date.