129-NLR-NLR-V-61-MUNICIPAL-COUNCIL-JAFFNA-Appellant-and-VALIGAMAM-WEST-OMNIBUS-CO.-LTD-.-R.pdf
526
BASNAYAJKE, C.J.—Municipal Council, Jaffna o. VtMgamam West
Omnibus Co., Lid.
1958Present:Basnayake, C.J., and Sansoni, J.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, JAEENA, Appellant, and VALIGAMAMWEST OMNIBUS CO., LTD., Respondent
S. G. 568—D. G. Jaffna, 10931
Motor Traffic {Use of Public Stands) Regulations, 1951—Application for a per mithereunder—Duration of permits.
The plaintiff, when he applied to a local authority for a monthly permitunder the Motor Traffic ("Use of Public Stands) Regulations of 1951, was issuedpermits from day to day.
Meld, that there is no provision in the Motor Traffic Act or in the Regulationsmade thereunder which makes it obligatory on a local authority to issue apermit for any particular period.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court, Jaffna.
E. F. 27. Gratiaen, Q.G., with Walter Jayawardene and P. Somatilakam,
for Defendant-Appellant.
G. Renganathan, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
July 24, 1958 . Basnayaxe, C.J.—
The only question that arises for decision on this appeal is whether theplaintiff was in law entitled to demand that a monthly permit should beissued to him under the Motor Traffic (Use of Public Stands) Regulations,1951, and whether the Municipal Council of Jaffna, the defendant, wasin law bound to issue such a permit. There is no provision in the MotorTraffic Act or in the Regulations made thereunder which makes it obliga-tory on a local authority to issue a permit for any particular period. Inthe instant case the plaintiff was issued a permit from day to day. Thecharge leviable for a permit for a day is fifty cents. The Regulationsprovide that where a permit for a month is issued the charge should beRs. 4 for the month. The plaintiff’s complaint is that instead of issuinga permit for a month, the defendant issued permits from day to day.We do not think that the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant was in lawbound to issue a monthly permit can be sustained. The plaintiff has nocause of action and this action must be dismissed.
We therefore set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge andmake order dismissing the plaintiff’s action with costs beth here and inthe court below.
Sansoni, J.—I agree.
Appeal aUowed'