Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling that partially upheld a legal challenge over the seizure of a Priority Bus Route (PBR) permit for a maxi taxi, after the owner’s father was found operating the vehicle without proper authorisation.
In a recent majority judgment, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux and Mark Mohammed found that Justice Frank Seepersad erred in granting relief to Navin Neranjen and his father, Doodnath Neranjen, in their case against the Ministry of Works and Transport.
Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh dissented, indicating that he would have upheld Justice Seepersad’s decision.
The matter centred on a PBR permit issued to Navin Neranjen for a red band maxi taxi. In 2019, Doodnath Neranjen was stopped by Transit Police officers in Macoya while plying the vehicle for hire.
At the time, his taxi driver’s badge had expired, although he presented a receipt indicating that a renewal was pending. He was subsequently issued a fixed penalty ticket for using the PBR without lawful authority, and the permit was seized.
The Neranjens challenged the seizure, arguing that it was unlawful.
Justice Seepersad found that the police officer was entitled to demand surrender of the permit, given that Doodnath was not listed as an authorised operator and did not possess a valid taxi badge. However, he ruled that a prescribed process had to be followed for the permit to be permanently withheld.
He outlined that such a process is typically triggered when a permit holder is convicted of a traffic offence, pays a fixed penalty, or breaches permit conditions. He also detailed the requirement for the Ministry to issue a notice informing the permit holder of the breach, the potential consequences, and an opportunity to respond.
“The notice should advise of the breach of the conditions and/or the relevant law, warn of the possible seizure, suspension or revocation of the permit, and ask the recipient to show cause why this should not be done,” Seepersad stated.
He further urged the Ministry to consider revising its system to allow maxi taxi owners greater flexibility in listing multiple authorised drivers.
Despite these findings, Seepersad declined to order the return of the permit, noting that it had expired during the course of the proceedings. He also rejected Neranjen’s claim for compensation—reportedly based on a loss of daily earnings of $2,000—on the basis that such relief must be pursued through a separate civil claim rather than judicial review.
On appeal, however, the majority found that the claim should have been dismissed outright due to material non-disclosure.
Justice Bereaux noted that the applicants failed to initially disclose that Doodnath’s taxi badge had expired and that he was not listed on the PBR permit—facts that only emerged during oral testimony.
“The effect of these errors is the judge misdirected himself on the facts and on the law and came to the wrong decision,” Bereaux stated.
He added that, given the lack of candour, no relief should have been granted even if the claim had merit.
“Given the untruthful evidence of Doodnath and that neither he nor Navin was full and frank with the Court, I would not have granted any relief,” he said.
In his dissent, Chief Justice Boodoosingh aligned more closely with Justice Seepersad’s reasoning, focusing on the Ministry’s exercise of its statutory powers rather than the applicants’ conduct.
He maintained that the approach adopted by Seepersad was legally sound and preserved procedural fairness.
“It ensures that executive authority is exercised within the bounds of fairness and does not undermine the procedural protections enshrined in the regulatory framework,” the Chief Justice said.
