PASSENGER TRANSPORT
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IMPORTANT CASE OF M.H.C.S.A. VERSUS GREEN LINE
Commissioner's Comment on Adjourned Application Suggests Far-reaching Results AN involved legal case of great .interest to all operators was heard on Tuesday last by the South Eastern Traffic Commissioners, sitting at Guildford. As forecast in last week's issue, Green Line Coaches, Ltd., applied for a backing for a licence to continue a London-Sevenoaks service, the application being opposed by the Motor Hirers and Coach Services Association, Ltd. The association contended that it was sought to legalize a service at present being run illegally.
The history of the case is that Green Line Coaches, Ltd., applied to the Metropolitan Commissioner for a licence for a London-Sevenoaks service, but it was allowed to operate only to Westerbarn.
The company then sought a backing from the South Eastern Traffic Commissioners, who permitted the service to be worked from the border of the Metropolitan area to Riverhead and Minton Green, Nevertheless, Green Line Coaches, Ltd., has continued to operate from Riverhead to Sevenoaks and has never run to Dniiton Green.
The concern appealed against the Metropolitan Commissioner's decision, but not against that of the South Eastern Commissioners. .
At the sitting last Tuesday there was a lengthy discussion as to whether the association had status in this case and it was decided that it had, and the objection was allowed to stand.
Now, section 73 of the Road Traffic Act states that a Commissioner shall have no control over matters outside his area, and with this ruling Mr. Rowand Harker, chairman of the South Eastern Commissioners, agrees. Although Green Lthe Coaches, Ltd., appealed concerning only the Metropolitan Commissioner's' decision, it con
tinned to operate in the Metropolitan and South Eastern areas as it had prior to February 9, 1931, and, in this, Mr. Harker considers that the company acted legally.
Thereupon, the M.H.C.S.A. withdrew its objection, not wishing, we understand, to take part in proceedings which it considered to be to legalize an illegality. At the time of closing for press, the association had not decided what action to take.
It would almost appear from Mr. Harker's decision that an operator who has appealed against a ruling concerning his primary licence, but not in connection with the backing, may continue to run as before February 9, 1931, until his appeal has been settled. There is also the question: If the Green Line concern be not satisfied with the South Eastern Commissioners' decision, has it the right to appeal under the Transitory Provision Order?
The case was adjourned for a fortnight.