Contravention of the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner had a stage carriage permit for his bus MDJ 1953. On 18th May, 1956, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, South Salem, stopped the vehicle at the 15th milestone on the Salem-Harur road, and checked it. He then found that the bus was carrying 49 passengers, excluding the driver and the conductor, while its authorised seating capacity was only 40 passengers. The bus was overloaded by nine passengers. In addition, it was found that thirty-one baskets of mangoes were being transported by that bus, for which freight charges had been collected at the rate of four annas per basket.

The Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, called for the explanation of the petitioner in respect of these irregularities. In the explanation which the petitioner submitted, he stated that the allegation that there were fortynine passengers was untrue and that the bus carried only 40 passengers. He further mentioned that a constable was travelling in that bus and that the constable should be examined in support of his explanation. He further pleaded that the charges had been brought against him purposely out of prejudice. So far as the baskets of mangoes were concerned, the explanation of the petitioner was that they constituted the luggage of certain passengers.

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, rejected the explanation tendered by the petitioner. He considered that there was no need to examine the constable, because that constable himself had signed the report drawn up by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. He rejected the plea that the mangoes constituted the luggage of certain persons, because not one of the passengers claimed it as his luggage. In the result, he suspended the permit of the petitioner for a period of 3 months for the offence of having overloaded the bus by nine passengers and for one week for the offence of having carried the baskets of mangoes.

On appeal, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal confirmed the findings of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, but reduced the period of suspension from 3 months to 1 month in respect of the offence of overloading. He confirmed the punishment in respect of the other offence.

The petitioner has now come to this Court for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the orders of the authorities below.

The first contention of Mr. M. R. Narayanaswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority contravened the principles of natural justice when he declined to take the evidence of the constable whom the petitioner had cited as a defence witness.

The authorities proceeded against the petitioner for contravention of clause (b) of section 60 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (1) of section 60 enumerates six categories of matters and provides that, should a contravention occur in respect of any of these, the permit may be cancelled or suspended for such period as the appropriate authority deems fit. There is a proviso to this which runs:

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

It will be noticed that this section does not require that the authorities concerned should record any evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to say that, when the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority declined to record the evidence of the constable whom the petitioner referred to, he contravened any provision of the statute. The next thing to remember is that the authorities referred to in this subsection have not been given power to summon witnesses or to enforce their attendance. The omission in the statute in this respect suggests that it was not the intention of the Legislature that the authorities in question should examine any witnesses. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner did not offer to produce the constable before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, for his examination.

Another circumstance may be