The main legal point established is that the procedure for suspension of permit is summary in nature, and the duty to produce documents on demand is mandatory under the Motor Vehicle Act.

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating the vehicle Tamil Nadu 23 B 9396. The said vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicle Inspector of Vaniyambadi on 08.03.2000 and a check report was also issued. The number of the vehicle was shown as TN-23-B-9369. Subsequently, the cheque report was corrected mentioning the number of the vehicle as TN-23-B-9396 on 212. 2000. Based on the check report, a charge memo was issued by the second respondent on 05.07.2000, for which the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation denying the irregularities alleged to have been noticed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Vaniyambadi. The irregularities said to have been noticed are as follows:

(1) Registration Certificate, Insurance certificate, Driver License, Conductor License were not carried in the vehicle at the time of checking.

(2) Fair list not available in the vehicle.

(3) No medicines were available in the first aid box.

2. The petitioner, by his explanation dated 08.09.2000 has brought to the notice of the authority, that the checking officer might have inspected a vehicle bearing registration No. TN-23-B-9369 belonging to some other person and subsequently changed the Registration Number as TN-23-B-9396, without any change in the name of the owner. The petitioner has further submitted in his explanation that if the Driver Licence and the Conductor Licence were not available at the time of check, the checking officer should have given a separate check report to the driver and conductor, who were very much available at the time of check. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the second respondent suspended the permit for a period of 15 days, with option to compound at Rs.100/-per day. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the first respondent in A.No.37 of 2001. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials, modified the order of suspension, by reducing the period to 10 days, with option to compound at Rs.1000/-. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

.3. Mrs. Radha Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has failed to note that the Registration Number of the vehicle mentioned in the check report was corrected subsequently, after three months from the date of check, without there being any change in the name of the owner and therefore she submitted that the vehicle TN-23-B-9396 was not at all involved in the violation of permit conditions, as alleged in the show cause notice. Placing reliance on a decision in "Swami Motor Transport Private Limited ..vs.. R.T.A. Tanjore", reported in "1963 (1) MLJ Short Notes Page 37" learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the signature of the driver and conductor obtained in the check report could only be a proof of factum of check, and that should not taken as proof for the irregularities said to have been noticed by the checking inspector. She further submitted that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the charges are admitted by the holder of permit inasmuch as the Driver and Conductor had already affixed their signature on the check report is illegal and arbitrary. According to her mere affixture of signatures, does not amount to proof of irregularities. Placing reliance on yet another decision in "N.Chandrasekaran ..vs.. Regional Transport Authority, south Arcot" reported in "1986 MLJ page 171", learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as no action was taken against the driver and conductor of the vehicle for non production of their licences, the respondents have no jurisdiction to initiate action against the holder of the permit for the omissions and commissions on the part of the crew of the vehicle. She further submitted that unless action is taken against them, it is not open to the respondent to proceed against the holder of the permit making him vicariously liable for the acts done by those persons. She also submitted