JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J. :—This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court summarily dismissing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Punjab.

2. The appellant is a private limited company carrying on transport business over a long period. The company was granted 33 stage carriage permits for various routes. It had a sanctioned fleet of 35 transport vehicles. On receipt of several reports and complaints from various sources, the State Transport Commissioner issued the following show cause notice to the appellant on March 28, 1974 : -

"Regd. A. D. from:

S. Balinder Singh IAS,

State Transport Commissioner.

Punjab.

To

The Managing Director,

New Samundri Transport Company (P) Ltd,

Ferozepur.

No. 455/JFI (2) dated Chandigrah the 28th March, 1974. Subject : Departmental Action.

Memorandum.

A list of prosecutions launched against your company by the operational staff is forwarded herewith. The offences committed are of a very serious nature. Your company is also short of fleet of fit vehicles. A copy of the joint report of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jullundur and Motor Vehicles Inspector, Jullundur relating to the condition of buses of your company is also enclosed. Due to the shortage of fit vehicles against the sanctioned fleet of 35 buses, number of services are being missed whereby the public is being put to a great inconvenience. You are therefore, required to show cause as why departmental action by way of suspension / cancellation of sate carriage permits under S.60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,should not be taken against your company. Reply should be sent to this office within 10 days of the receipt of this notice failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say.

State Transport Commissioner Punjab".

3. The appellant says that an explanation was posted to the Commissioner within time under certificate of posting. According to the Commissioner it was not received. The District Judge, who is the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, observed in his order that-

"some mischief appears to have been committed in the office of the respondent with regard to the reply which was sent under postal certificate.

4. We will, however, proceed on the assumption that no explanation was sent by the appellant to the Commissioner. Even so a manifestly wrong procedure in a departmental action of this nature is obvious on the face of the above notice resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. The notice was issued under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (briefly the Act) which may be quoted:

60(1)" The transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit:

(a) on the breach of any condition specified in sub-section (3) of Section or of any condition contained a the permit, or

(b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit or

(c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle or vehicles covered by the permit, or

(d) if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation, or

(e) if the holder of the permit, not being a private carrier s permit fails without reasonable cause to use the vehicle or vehicles for the purposes for which the permit was granted; or 59

(f) if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country:

Provided that no permit shall be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation".

Sub-section (3) of Section provides for composition of breach of certain conditions. Section 59 (3) contains the conditions laid down for every permit. The target of Section 60 is the permit that has been issued breach of condition of which is the subject-matter of action under it except in cases covered by Section 60(1) (d) and (f). It is true th