OLLENNU J.: (His lordship stated the facts, summarised the arguments of counsel, and proceeded):—
There is no doubt that section 10 of the Ordinance shows an intention of the Legislature that a Concession should be null and void if due vigilance is not exercised within the first two years, or within an extension thereof. The question is, on whose part is that vigilance required by the Ordinance the Claimant, the Court, or both? In other words, it is the intention of the Legislature that a “Certificate of Validity” must be granted within the time limit, and that if it is not so granted the Concession shall become null and void? Or does the Legislature intend that “final application for the grant of Certificate of Validity must be made to the Court” within the time limit, leaving it to the Court to deal with the application at its convenience?
The answer depends entirely upon the interpretation to be placed upon section 10(1)(c) of the Concessions Ordinance, which reads as follows:-
“10 (1…