( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a bus operator. His bus No. MPH 7091 was duly registered and he had paid road tax upto 31-12-1971 as required by the M. P. Motor Vehicles taxation Act, 1947 vide Annexure A. On 16-9-1971, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Registering Authority (Regional Transport Officer, Gwalior) --nonpetitioner no. 2, calling upon him to show cause why action under Section 33 of motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) should not be taken against him for the following offences:--

(1) On 24-1-1971, the bus was found over-loaded by 11 passengers;

(2) On 26-5-1971, the bus was found carrying 6 passengers without tickets;

(3) On 9-8-1971, the bus was found plying on nationalised route without permit on hire vide Annexure B.

The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 25-9-1971 vide annexure C. Thereafter, non-petitioner No. 2 issued a letterdated 7-10-1971 calling upon the petitioner to attend the office on 12-10-1971 in connection with the case vide Annexure D. According to the petitioner, this notice was not delivered to him till 12-10-1971. But in spite of this, the Registering Authority proceeded to suspend the registration certificate of the petitioner for four months vide Annexure F. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the prescribed Authority (non-petitioner No. 1) under Section 35 of the Act vide Annexure G. As there was delay in the disposal of the appeal, and no stay was granted during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court with the observations:--"it must be presumed that the Prescribed Authority is alive of its responsibility in the matter and would act promptly. "

Thereafter, the appeal was disposed of and was dismissed on merits vide order dated 8-11-1971 (Annexure J ). The contention of the petitioner is that the suspension of the registration certificate Was not according to law inasmuch as he was not given due opportunity of being heard in the matter and that the orders of the non-petitioners relating thereto are liable to be quashed.

( 3 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was not given due opportunity of being heard in the matter and that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. There can be no doubt that the functions of the registering Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority are quasi-judicial in nature and as such they are required to have a judicial approach and follow, the rules of natural justice in discharging that function. The essential element of judicial approach and the most important rule of natural justice is that due opportunity should be given to the party who is affected by the order to make a representation and to be heard before the order is made.

( 4 ) IN Bhagatpura M. T. Co-operative Society v. K. S. Jhala AIR 1965 Raj 149 it was held that an order under Section 33 of the Act is quasi-judicial in nature and is liable to be quashed, if it is passed without hearing the party concerned. A similar view was expressed in Ramaswamy v. R. T. Officer, AIR 1965 Mad 403 and it was emphasised in that case that the opportunity of making a representation must be not merely formal but effective. The principle enunciated in these cases is well settled and it is needless to refer to other authorities in this connection.

( 5 ) THE point for consideration, therefore, is whether the impugned order of suspension of the registration certificate was passed without giving due opportunity to the petitioner of making a representation and of being heard in the matter. Shri P. L. Dube, learned Government Advocate who appeared for the non-petitioners urged that the question whether the petitioner was given due opportunity of being heard or not, can be properly decided only after looking into the record of the case, a