A personal hearing is not mandatory under S.60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the authorities' consideration of the affected party's explanation is sufficient to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

ORDER :- Petitioner in C.R.P. No. 466 of 1982 is the owner of the stage carriage TNA 8689, which was stopped and checked at 100/8 K.M. stone on Palani-Coimbatore Road at 6.30 p.m., on 26-3-1980, and it was found carrying six passengers in excess of the permitted seating capacity of 51; and the Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and the permit were not available at the time of checking. All the 57 tickets were seized and statements from the crew of the vehicle and a passenger were recorded, resulting in charge memo being issued. After securing explanation from the petitioner, the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore held that the charge of overloading had been proved, and, therefore, under S.60(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, he suspended the permit for three days with an option to compound at Rs. 75/- per day. The Appellate Authority agreed with this finding resulting in this revision petition being preferred.

2. C.R.P. No. 80 of 1983 :- Petitioner herein is the owner of a stage carriage TNJ 2944 which was stopped and checked at 2 K.M. stone on Vellore-Tiruvalam Road at 4.45 p.m., on 22-8-1978 and it was found carrying an overload of 6 adult passengers over its permitted seating capacity of 58. A charge memo was issued, and after receipt of petitioners representation, etc, the Regional Transport Authority, Madras Region, taking note of the fact that 64 tickets have been seized, which was a concrete proof; and the explanation offered not being satisfactory, held that the charge had been proved, and therefore, suspended the permit by one day with an option to compound at Rs. 100/-. The Appellate Authority agreed with this finding, and pointed out that whether the seating capacity is 58 or 60, nevertheless, a large number of persons than the permitted limit having travelled at the time of check, the charge of overloading had been proved, and therefore, dismissed the appeal, as against which the revision petition is preferred.

3. Mr. Manivannan, learned counsel for no petitioner in C.R.P. No. 466 of 1982 would strenuously plead that the explanations rendered and the remarks of the Inspector, have not been properly appreciated by both the authorities. He submits that, admittedly the check took place on a Panguni Uthiram Festival Day, and therefore, due to heavy traffic condition, the vehicle had to proceed very slowly, which had enabled some persons to forcibly enter the bus, and then the conductor protested and directed the driver to take the bus to the Police station, and it was at that point of time, the Checking Officer having entered the vehicle and added to it, he had compelled the conductor to issue tickets to those persons, and hence the seizure of 57 tickets could not be treated as a concrete proof of overloading. In spite of the unusual circumstance which developed and which was beyond the control of the conductor regarding the excess number of persons found in the vehicle, and in spite of having properly and honestly explained to both the authorities; with a closed mind they have held that the charge has been proved, when factually no overloading had occasioned. He, therefore, submits that, if only a personal hearing had been extended by the Regional Transport Authority, petitioner would have convinced him about the correctness of the claim made by him.

4. There is no dispute that 57 tickets issued by the conductor had been taken custody of. The crew of thee vehicle have given a statement, along with a statement by a passenger. It has been held that, solely resting upon the statement of the crew, the charge cannot be held to be proved; because under the Rules, they are obliged to sign the check export. The statement of the passenger does does not deal with overloading, but the authorities have considered as to what extent these statements could be looked into. They mainly rested their finding on the seizure of 57 tickets issued by the conductor. The plea put forth that the Checking Officer compelled