Land Transport Appeals Tribunal
Sitting At Lautoka							Appeal # 71 of 2014

Between:	Sumintra Devi and Suresh Chand
							
[Appellant]

And:		Land Transport Authority
							[Respondent]

		Nadan Buses Ltd			[Interested Party]

Appearances and Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms. Naidu (Qoro Legal)
For LTA: Mr N. Chand
For Nadan Buses Ltd: Mr V Kapadia (Sherani & Co)

Judgment 

Introduction

The Appellants have appealed the decision (dated 12th December 2014) of the LTA where the Authority had approved the amendments of Road Route Permits in favour of Nadan Buses Limited.

Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant’s grounds for appeal are as follows:

“1. That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to provide reasons for its decision in approving the amendments to Road Permit.

2. That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider that the Appellants have been providing service almost 5 years at the given route efficiently.

3. That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider that the Residents of Vanuakula, Nabuna and Rukuruku had  from several farming/rural all supported the objection for the application of amending the Road Route. 

4. That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider the Road condition and that it is along the flood prone area which is not fit for Bus operations.

5. That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to take into account that there are less than 200 children in the above mentioned area.

6. That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider the investments of the Appellants in his business by purchasing another Van registration number CR742 also for providing services in the area which is under loan and currently I am under debt almost for $69,252.00 from various banks.

7. That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider that the Appellants were also willing to operate the transport service to the school children at the rate of 35  cents.”

Hearing and Submissions Made

The matter was heard on 18th March 2016. This Tribunal has perused and noted all the documents filed and the submissions made.  

The Function and Powers of the Tribunal
Section 40 (2) of the Land Transport Act provides for the function of the Tribunal, which is “to hear and determine appeals against decisions of the Authority relating to -
(a)  licensing of drivers under section 56;
(b) any matter requiring a decision of the Authority under  Part VI ; and any other matter prescribed by the Minister by regulations.”

Regulation 34 (1) and (2) of the Land Transport (Vehicles Registration and Construction) Regulations 2000 allows the Tribunal to deal with appeals relating to issuance and cancellation of dealing certificate or trader permit. 
The powers of the Tribunal for the purposes of hearing and determining appeals according to Section 46 are to “(a) to issue a summons to a witness in the prescribed for ; (b) to call for the production of books, plans and documents; (c) to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation; (d) to admit any evidence whether written or oral and whether or not such evidence would be admissible in civil or criminal proceedings; (e) to exclude any person if necessary so as to ensure the proper conduct of the appeal or to preserve order.”

Furthermore, under Section 46 (2) “on an appeal under this Part the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal or make such order as it thinks just and reasonable in the circumstances directing the Authority to issue, transfer, or cancel any licence, certificate or permit, or to impose, vary, or remove any condition or restriction in respect of a licence, certificate or permit, and the Authority shall comply with that order.” And under Section 46 (3) “Upon the determination of an appeal under this section the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks just with the respect to the costs of the appeal, and any person to whom any such costs are awarded may recover the amount of those costs in any court of competent jurisdiction, as a debt due from the person against whom those costs are awarded.”
According to Section 47 the Tribunal “for the purposes of the hearing and determination of any appeal the Tribunal shall have regard to those matters which the Authority is required to have regard to in considering an application under this Act.”

Analysis

The Tribunal will go over each of the grounds of appeal in turn:

Ground 1 - That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to provide reasons for its decision in approving the amendments to Road Permit.

The Tribunal has perused the decision letter given out by LTA it does not contain reasons for its decision in approving the amendment to the Road Permit. In Pacific Transport Ltd v Khan [1997] FJCA 3; Abu0021u.1996s (12 February 1997). The Court stated that “we strongly recommend to the TCB what was recommended to it in 1984 by this Court - namely, that in all cases, it give brief reasons for its decision. Failure to do so involves parties in more cost and litigation. As is noted in some of the authorities, a failure to give reasons can make a ‘disappointed’ litigant a ‘disturbed’ litigant.”
This Tribunal notes from the Fiji Court Appeal decision that the practice required of the TCB and now the LTA is to give reasons for its decisions. It can be brief. But reasons must be given. In the given matter the LTA was required to explain why the application was being approved. This is not contained in the decision letter. No party to proceedings before the LTA should be required to look within the decision letters and make out what the decision of the LTA is. The decision of LTA for matters that are before it must be briefly and clearly stated in the decision letters. 

Ground 2 - That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider that the Appellants have been providing service almost 5 years at the given route efficiently.

The LTA considered the fact that RSL 697 and 272, that belonged to the Appellants were operating and servicing the villages and the school students. This is contained in a report dated 24th October 2014 to the Chairman. Even the objection of the people in the locality was noted. The Respondent, LTA considered the effect of the proposed service on other public vehicle operators therefore this ground of appeal is not made out.

Ground 3 - That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider that the Residents of Vanuakula, Nabuna and Rukuruku had from several farming/rural all supported the objection for the application of amending the Road Route. 

As is mentioned in analysing ground 2 of the appeal. The LTA considered the objections as well. The LTA considered the objections and the support. This ground of appeal is not made out.

Ground 4 - That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider the Road condition and that it is along the flood prone area which is not fit for Bus operations.

This ground of appeal filed by the appellants who are mini-bus operators stating that the road condition and that area is flood prone and is not fit for bus operations is mischievous. A bus is higher than a mini-van.  The Tribunal notes that in a flood prone road if a bus is not able to travel, neither would a mini-bus. 

In its report the LTA considered the safety aspect. This ground of appeal is not made out.

Ground 5 - That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to take into account that there are less than 200 children in the above mentioned area.

The Load surveys conducted by LTA showed that there were more than 200 school children in the area. This ground of appeal is dismissed.

Ground 6 - That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider the investments of the Appellants in his business by purchasing another Van registration number CR742 also for providing services in the area which is under loan and currently I am under debt almost for $69,252.00 from various banks.

The LTA considered other public service vehicle operators when it considered the application by the 2nd Respondents. The interest of the Appellants were considered by the LTA in dealing with the application that was before it. This ground of appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Ground 7 - That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider that the Appellants were also willing to operate the transport service to the school children at the rate of 35 cents.

The LTA considered all relevant matters which included the fare the consumers will be paying in dealing with the application. On the whole the LTA fairly dealt with the application, it based its decision on the relevant reports and information that it gathered. The objections and support, together with need assessment and suitability of service and public interest considerations were taken into account by LTA in reaching its decision. 

Orders

-	The Appeal is dismissed
-	The Appellants are to pay LTA costs of this appeal, within 21 days  which is summarily assessed at $750.00. 
-	The Appellants are to pay Nadan Buses Ltd costs of this appeal, within 21 days  which is summarily assessed at $750.00. 
-	

The Parties have the right of Appeal.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Land Transport Appeals Tribunal
20th May 2016