A Transport Ministry directive to Transport Malta not to process an application by a bus importer to license eight open top double decker buses was an incorrect administrative decision, the First Hall of the Civil Court has ruled.
The court ruled that TM had not acted correctly when it failed to process an application by bus importer Garden of Eden Garage Ltd to licence the buses.
GOE had filed a case against TM in which it said that in October 2008 it had applied to TM for permission to import the eight buses for use in the tourist sector.
That same month the Commission for Fair Trading had ordered TM to licence three other buses which GOE had previously imported.
In November 2008 GOE imported the buses and applied to TM for their licence.
But the following month the Minister responsible for Transport had instructed TM not to issue the licences for the buses until a policy for this service was formulated.
TM then informed GOE that it was not going to process the application for the licences.
GOE lodged its case before the courts on May 18, 2009 and on the following day the regulations for the service of transport of passengers were enacted.
TM then informed GOE that it would issue the licences for the buses provided that the buses were in conformity with the regulations.
According to TM, six of the eight buses did not conform to the regulations' specifications.
GOE requested the court to declare that TM's failure to process its application was tantamount to a refusal of its application.
The court was also requested to find that TM's actions were not correct acts of administration and to condemn TM to pay damages.
Delivering judgement, Mr Justice Joseph R Micallef agreed with GOE and found that TM's failure was a refusal of the application to licence the buses.
When a public authority was called upon to issue a licence authorised at law, the authority had to act correctly and in accordance with the law in force at the time the application was filed.
The authority could not withhold a licence on the basis of regulations that would be issued in the future.
The real reason why TM had not processed the application was the ministerial directive not to issue any licences for such types of buses.
When the directive was issued there were laws in force that governed the issue of buses' licence. TM and the minister were to abide by such laws. A ministerial directive could not repeal an existing law, nor could it suspend its operation.
The court therefore upheld GOE's request and ruled that TM's failure to issue the licences was an incorrect administrative decision. The court put the case off for a decision on the quantum of damages and ruled that the judgment was to be provisionally enforceable against a bank guarantee of €20,000.