A group of excursion bus owners has been given the green light to pursue a case challenging a $15,000 licensing fee being imposed by the Public Transport Service Corporation (PTSC).
Late last week, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad granted the Private Bus Owners/Operators Association and its president Nazim Mohammed leave to pursue a lawsuit over the legality of the fee against the corporation, the Transport Commissioner, and the Office of the Attorney General.
In their court filings obtained by Guardian Media, the association’s lawyers led by Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan claimed that from 1997 to 2004, his client’s members, who do charters and excursions using refurbished decommissioned PTSC buses, were required to pay the fee in order to conduct transactions with the Licensing Authority.
The fee for the public service vehicle (PSV) licence was initially set at $100 but was increased annually. It stood at $7,500 in 2004.
They claimed that in 2004, Mohammed and his members were informed by officials of the authority that the PTSC did not have the power to impose such fees and the licence would no longer be required to conduct transactions.
Mohammed and his members followed the instructions and were permitted to conduct transfers and inspections of their buses.
They claimed that when he and his members attempted to have their buses inspected last year, they were told that they would be once again required to obtain a PSV licence from the PTSC before they could complete the process.
They were also informed that without the PSV licence they would only be able to have three passengers in the buses, inclusive of the driver.
They alleged that the corporation’s officials initially claimed that the current fee for the licence was $11,000.
However, after the association’s lawyers requested disclosure of information relating to the licensing scheme and associated fees, they were informed that the fee for buses with more than 26 seats, such as those operated by the association’s members, was $15,000.
The corporation indicated that there were lower fees for buses with 15 seats or less and between 16 and 26 seats.
The association’s lawyers claimed that the bus owners cannot afford the current fee.
They claimed that Mohammed, who owns two buses, only receives one charter per month, earning $1,200 after deducting fuel costs.
“It is financially oppressive and has created grave hardship, distress and inconvenience,” they said.
“Without inspection, his buses cannot lawfully be driven on the roadways, and if he opts to do so, he will place himself at the peril of receiving a ticket, the value of which he cannot afford to pay,” they said.
They claimed that Mohammed and his colleagues were forced to decide whether to operate illegally in order to earn a living.
“Many of the association’s members have received tickets for driving their buses without inspection. They were forced to do so in order to earn to support their families and to pay for the PSV licence,” they said.
They also contended that the fee is grossly disproportionate as they pointed out that the current fee charged to Route 2 (red band) maxi taxi operators to use the Priority Bus Route (PBR) is $2,400.
“The PSV fee in its current quantum is unjustified and illegal,” they said.
The association’s lawyers admitted that under the Public Transport Service Act, the corporation is permitted to issue licences to allow private individuals to operate public service vehicles.
However, they noted that such licences are granted where private individuals seek to provide public transport services on routes not operated by the corporation.
They claimed that the services provided by their client should not be covered under the licence.
“Travelling passengers are not picked up en route by chartered motor omnibuses, nor do they ply a specific route,” they said.
They also contend that only the Minister of Works and Transport has the power to prescribe the associated fee.
“The PSV licence fee has never been prescribed into law by Parliament or the Minister and therefore the demand for same by the PTSC is ultra vires the Act and illegal,” they said.
They also claimed that under the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act, the authority did not have the power to require that their clients obtain licences from the PTSC.
They also questioned the reintroduction of the licensing requirement after an almost two-decade hiatus.
“The sudden change in policy cannot be justified by reference to the discretionary powers granted to PTSC by the Act because no such powers were in fact granted by the Act to PTSC, which has no power to unilaterally impose this licence fee or tax on the Claimants,” they said.
Through the lawsuit, Mohammed and the association are seeking a series of declarations against the corporation and authority. They are also seeking an order quashing the licensing requirement and associated fee.
They are being represented by Jayanti Lutchmedial, Kent Samlal, Vishaal Siewsaran, Natasha Bisram and Aasha Ramlal.
The case is expected to come up for hearing after the 2024/2025 law term opens next month.
