PRESIDENT, DISTRICT BOARD Vs. KONERU LAKSHMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Board of Kistna has brought these suits against the defendants, who are motor bus proprietors for a permanent injunction restraining them from plying their motor cars on the roads of the District Board of Kistna without a licence, and for recovery of licence fees or damages from the defendants for running their respective motor vehicles without licences. The District Munsiff of Masulipatam discussed the various points of law that arose in a very elaborate judgment and came to the conclusion that the District Board was not entitled to an injunction, that they were not entitled to the recovery of licence fees as such; but that there was nothing in law to prevent the District Board from recovering damages for damage to their roads; and he has assessed the damages on the basis of the licence fees which the defendants did not pay. The District Judge, while agreeing with the trial Judge that the suit was maintainable, held that the action of the District Board in granting temporary licences was ultra-vires and that the defendants, although in fact they only received licences for two months, must be deemed to have obtained licences for a full year, as the District Board was not entitled to refuse them licences for that period. He therefore allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits.

(2.) The facts that gave rise to the trouble between the Kistna District Board and the various bus proprietors in the District were that certain proposals had been sent to Government for a modification of the bye-laws, so that a higher rate for licence fees might be charged. There was also some question as to the legal position that would arise from a bifurcation of the District Board. While these proposals were pending with the Government, the District Board were unwilling to grant licences for the full period of a year and granted licences for two months only, debiting the bus proprietors with one-sixth of the annual rate. Upon the expiry of that two months the defendant made no application for further licences, but continued to ply their buses without licence, until the end of the year. It appears from the correspondence that has been filed that other bus proprietors did apply for renewals of their licences and were told that licence would be granted for the remaining period of the year upon their paying the proportionate share of the remaining months in the year of the new rate of licence sanctioned by the Government.

(3.) A point was raised in the Courts below whether the District Board, in view of the provisions of bye-law 4, Sub-section 1, could issue licences for a period less than one year. The District Munsiff seemed to think that they could and held that in any event the defendants were estopped from denying the right of the Board, in that they had accepted the licences. The District Judge thought that there could be no question of estoppel, because the actions of the proprietors in applying for licences for a year and in running their buses for a year showed that they did not accept the terms of the licence, while the evidence let in on behalf of the plaintiff did not show that there was an acceptance of the licence for two months. I have been taken through some of the more important evidence on this point and there can be no doubt that the motor bus proprietors in the Kistna District were well aware of the discussions that were taking place in the Council and the proposals to enhance the rates for the granting of licences. They were also aware of course of the proposal to bifurcate the District Board. It is also equally clear from the evidence that the District Board intended to extend the licences without question subject to the payment of such enhanced licence fees as might be sanctioned by the Government. It has been contended that there is nothing to show that the bus owners were able to read the stipulation in the licences granted that they were good only for two months. In view of the fact that the bus owners had been protesting to the District Board against any enhancement of licence fees, the defendants cannot be heard to say that they were not aware of the stipulation of the licence. Even if they did not know English it would be their business to find out what was written in their licences. After setting out the particulars regarding the description of the vehicle, fees paid, etc., there was a note in the licence to this effect: In view of the fact that revised bye-laws which are sent up for the formal approval of Government, will come into operation shortly, and in view of the fact that an elected Board will come into office ere long, this licence is granted only from 1st April, 1929, to 31 May, 1929.