PRESIDENT, DISTRICT BOARD, KISTNA, MASULIPATAM Vs. KENERU 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 license, and for recovery of license fees or damages from the defendants for running their respective motor vehicles without licenses. The District Munsif 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 license 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 license 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 licenses was ultra vires and that the defendants, although in fact they only received licenses for two months, must be deemed to have obtained licenses for a full year, as the District Board was not entitled to refuse them licenses 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 license 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 licenses for the full period of a year and granted licenses for two months only, debiting the bus proprietors with one-sixth of the annual rate. Upon the expiry of that two months, the applicants made no application for further licenses, but continued to ply their buses without license 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 licenses and were told that license would be granted for the remaining period of the year upon their paying the proportionate share for the remaining months in the year of the new rate of license 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 licenses for a period less than one year. The District Munsif 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 licenses. The District Judge thought that there could be no question of estoppel, because the actions of the proprietors in applying for licenses for a year and in running their buses for a year showed that they did not accept the terms of the license, while the evidence let in on behalf of the plaintiff did not show that there was an acceptance of the license 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 licenses. 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 licenses without question subject to the payment of such enhanced license 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 licenses 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 license fees, the defendants cannot be heard to say that they were not aware of the stipulation of the license. Even if they did not know English, it would be their business to find out what was written in their licenses. After setting out the particulars regarding the description of the vehicle, fees paid etc., there was a note in the license 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 license is granted only from 1 April, 1929 to 31 May 1929.