A. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been preferred against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he dismissed a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the owner of a stage carriage No. USP. 834 and held a permit for running it on Khatauli-Jansath-Miranpur-Ramraj route in the district of Muzaffarnagar. On the 26th of august, 1954 at 8-20 A. M. Sri A.. Qizilbash, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, meerut, checked the vehicle near the level crossing on the Khatauli-Jansath road. It was found that there were 31 passengers in the vehicle but only 28 of them held tickets, no tickets having been issued for the remaining three. It was also found that the stage carriage had not started at miranpur at 7-30 A. M. according to the scheduled time table but has started at 7-50 A. M. at jansath on its way to Khataul. It had not gone to Miranpur at all. Sri Qizilbash thereupon issued a notice to the appellant to show cause under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act why the permit of the appellant in respect of the vehicle should not be suspended or cancelled. The appellant showed cause. His explanation was that his vehicle had in fact startled from Miranpur according to the time schedule and that it was not necessary to issue any tickets to the three passengers who were found without tickets because they were not passengers but only employees of the appellant. The matter was considered by the Regional Transport Authority and it decided to suspend the permit of the appellant for three months. The appellant preferred an appeal to the State Transport authority Tribunal, which upheld the order of suspension. He then filed the writ petition against the dismissal of which this special appeal has been filed and prayed for the quashing of the order of suspension by a writ of certiorar. He also claimed a writ of mandamus requiring the authorities not to enforce the order of suspension. The main points urged in support of the petition before the learned Single Judge were (1) that though the vehicle of the appellant had in fact started from Miranpur according to the time table, even if it was conceded for the sake of argument that it had started not at Miranpur but at jansath, that could not amount to a breach of the conditions of the permit for which the appellants permit could be suspended; (2) that as the passengers who were found without tickets had not paid any fare it was not necessary for the appellant to issue tickets, to them; the mere fact that they were without ticket could nob justify the suspension of the appellants permit; (3) that the appellant had not been given a fair hearing either before the Regional Transport Authority or before the Appellate Tribunal; and (4) that the order that the appellants vehicle should start every day from Miranpur and should not run between Jansath and Khatauli only was not a valid order and if it was to be deemed to be a condition of the appellants permit it amounted to an unreasonable restriction on the appellants right to carry on his trade and profession and was therefore void.

( 3 ) ALL these contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge and he dismissed the appellants petition.

( 4 ) IN his some-what lengthy arguments in appeal the learned counsel for the appellant raised a number of points. We do not think it necessary to deal with all of them. The appellants permit has been suspended under Section 60 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act for breach of two conditions of his permit. The first was that the vehicle had been found carrying three passengers to whom tickets had not been issued. The second was that he had not followed the prescribed time table as he had started his vehicle at Jansath on the morning in question instead of at miranpur.

( 5 ) THE fact that three of the passengers in the vehicle did not have tickets was not disputed on behalf of the appellant. The explanation he put forwa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document