KAN SINGH, J.—The petitioner, who is a Co-operative Society registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act and plies a stage carriage bus No. RJR 2814, on Hanumangrah Dabwali via Sangaria route in Ganganagar district, has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 27-8-64 (Ex. 4 on the record ) passed by respondent No. 1, under sec. 33(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter to be referred as the Act, whereby the registration certificate of the vehicle RJR 2814 was suspended for a period of four months.

2. The petitioner Messrs Bhagatpura Motor Transport Co-operative Society Limited, Bhagatpura, was granted a non-temporary permit valid for a period of three years on 18-4-63, and normally the permit would be valid upto 17-4-66. On 27-7-64, respondent No.1, ( Regional Transport Officer ) served a notice on the petitioner calling! upon him to show cause within a week why its registration certificate be not suspended as the stage carriage bus was found plying on another route Sangaria-45 R. D. on 24-7-64 carrying passengers. According to the petitioner, he gave a reply to the notice denying the correctness of the allegations and asked for an opportunity to explain the exact position personally and for producing the necessary evidence,. According to the petitioner, this opportunity was not afforded by the respondent who was not favourably disposed towards it and nurtured personal ill will on account of it having made complaints against the Regional Transport Officer prior to the matter covered by the notice had arisen. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court making grievance of the order of the Regional Transport Officer on the ground that the same was passed without proper hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. It is averred on their behalf that the bus in question was found plying on Sangaria 45 R. D. route on 24-7-64, and was caught red handed while it was so plying. Certain tickets issued by the petitioner were also taken in custody by the Sub Inspector, Transport, Ganganagar and respondent No. 1 was himself present. A proper seizure memo was prepared at the spot in the presence of motbirs. It is denied that respondent No. 1 bore any ill will against the petitioner. As regards the contention for not giving of personal hearing, it is submitted that the proceedings were administrative in nature and not quasi judicial. Further it is urged that the respondent No. 1, himself being on the spot, no further enquiry was necessary. The petitioner contended at the time of hearing that the impugned order was bad on account of the following reasons : —

(i) That the respondent No.1, had violated the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he did not afford opportunity to the petitioner to prove its case by leading evidence when it was demanded of him ;

(ii) That sec. 33 (1) (b) of the Act was not attracted as the petitioner had a permit for plying the vehicle for hire or reward. That provision is applicable, according to the petitioner, only when a vehicle had never been permitted to ply for hire or reward. In this connection it is pointed out that in the case of transport vehicles plying for hire or reward, it is only the Regional Transport Authority who can take action under sec. 60 of the Act by way of suspending or cancelling a permit;

(iii) That the action of the respondent No.1 was mala fide as he bore illwill against the petitioner.

4. There was considerable argument on the second point about the proper interpretation of sec. 33 (1) (b) of the Act, but in view of the conclusion that we have reached on point No.1, we do not think it will be necessary to deal with the second question. For the purposes of the present case we assume, without deciding, that that section covers even a transport vehicle which has a permit for one route for plying for hire or reward and has been found plying on a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document