V. D. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Aticle 226 of the Constitution filed by one Brij Bhushan Pande against the Transport Authority, U. P. and the Regional Transport Authority in the Gorakhpur Region.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner has been plying a stage carriage since 1942 on the ballia Bansdith-Manior Sisota route. As was the custom from the year 1940 (sic) he was given a temporary permit for three years at a time. After the decision of the Full Bench case, Moti Lal v. Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 All 257 (A), the petitioner also made an application for renewal of his permit. His allegation is that from the year 1942 till 5th December 1950 there has been no conviction against him. From the 5th December 1950 to the 4th December 1953 he plied his bus on the above route and he was never convicted of any offence under the Motor Vehicles Act nor any strictures were passed by any court against him and there were no adverse endorsements on the permit or on the licence. He applied for the renewal of the permit on the 12th October 1953 which was duly published in the Government gazette under Section 57. Sub-clause (3) of the motor Vehicles Act. No objections were filed against the applicant either by any of the persons operating motor vehicles within that area or by the police. But there was a list of six convictions against the petitioner which was before the Regional transport Authority and, as it transpires, that list was given by the Superintendent of police. When that list of challans was given to the petitioner, he tried to search them out and found that those challans really were not against him at all. In spite of that fact the Regional Transport authority by its order dated 29th December 1953 refused to renew the permit of the petitioner. There was an appeal against that order to the State Transport Authority. That appeal was dismissed on 9th April 1955. Aggrieved with that decision of the Regional Transport Authority and that of the State Transport Authority the petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition.

( 3 ) IT has been urged in the counter affidavit and this fact has substantially been admitted by the opposite party that really these convictions were non-existent at the time the order was passed or were, in fact, incorrect.

( 4 ) THE first date of Checking is said to be 6-9-51, and it is said that it was a case of over loading under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the notice served on the petitioner it was shown that he was fined Rs. 30/- on 9-1-53. The Regional Transport Authority had rejected the petition on 29-12-53. Before that there was an appeal which had been decided against that conviction and in that appeal the petitioner was acquitted. Therefore it cannot be said that there was any conviction as regards this checking against the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE second challan against him is said to have been on account of the checking dated 7-1-1952. That was against a case of over loading under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver and it was said that the applicant had been fined Rs. 20/- on 12-5-52. There is a categorical denial in the petition that the petitioner was ever challaned on that day or convicted as alleged. The counter affidavit does not assert that there has been such a conviction. There is an evasive answer to this paragraph. It has been alleged therein that the list sent by the Superintendent of Police shows that there was a challan of vehicle No. UGP 135 which resulted in a conviction. If there really had been a conviction of the petitioner or his driver about his bus I should have expected a certified copy of the judgment or at least the number of the case and the date of the decision; and in the circumstances there can be no other inference but that there has been no conviction against the petitioner on that date.

( 6 ) THERE were three other challans which were mentioned in Annexure a. They were of 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document