Judgment :- 1. The holder of a stage carriage permit is the writ applicant. This permit was suspended for a period of two weeks by the first respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, by Ext. P4 and this order has been confirmed by the second respondent, the appellate authority, by Ex. P5. These orders came to be passed on the basis of two reports sent by the Motor Vehicles Inspector who is alleged to have checked the vehicle on 27-1-1961 and according to these reports, the vehicle was found overloaded. The reports said that the vehicle authorised to carry 32 passengers was having 58 passengers then. The Government Pleader appearing in the case has correctly pointed out that two facts are admitted; that the vehicle was checked on 27-1-1961 and that at the time of the checking there could possibly have been 58 passengers inside the vehicle. The point made by counsel on behalf of the petitioner, however, is, that the vehicle was checked while it was in the bus stand and that the extra passengers found inside the vehicle were those who got in. This version is contradicted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector in his report dated 5-8-1961. It has also been rightly pointed out by the Government Pleader that this is not a new version given by the Inspector, for it is seen from his earlier report that the check was made after stopping a running vehicle. In these circumstances, normally I would not have interfered with the orders passed by the authorities. However, I find that a special request had been made by the petitioner by Ext. 2 before the first respondent that he should be permitted to cross-examine the Motor Vehicles Inspector concerned and that he should be given an opportunity to examine two witnesses. This was apparently not allowed & a complaint was made before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has disposed of this contention on the basis that the petition, copy of which is Ext. P2, said to have been filed by the petitioner before the Regional Transport Authority is not seen among the records sent by the Regional Transport Authority. In other words, the second respondent proceeds on the basis that there could possibly not have been any such petition filed. 2. P2, said to have been filed by the petitioner before the Regional Transport Authority is not seen among the records sent by the Regional Transport Authority. In other words, the second respondent proceeds on the basis that there could possibly not have been any such petition filed. 2. In the grounds taken in the appeal before the second respondent there is ground No. 2 which reads: "The Regional Transport Authority has acted illegally in not permitting the appellant to examine witnesses or to adduce other evidence. The petition put in by ;he appellant seeking permission to do so has been ignored by the Regional Transport Authority. This is contrary to the principles of natural justice.". There is a report sent by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority. This report, I understand, is normally forwarded by the Regional Transport Authorities when the grounds of appeal taken against the orders of the Regional Transport Authorities are made known to those authorities. The report in this case has been made available to me and it is dated 17-11-1962 and purports to deal with the various grounds in the appeal petition in the order in which they are mentioned in the appeal petition. Regarding ground No. 2, the reply is contained in Para.2 of the report and reads: "the Regional Transport Authority having been satisfied that there had been a violation of one of the conditions attached to the permit did not think it necessary to permit the appellant to examine witnesses or adduce further evidence." It is also stated in Para.5 of the report: "There had been no precedence in which the Regional Transport Authority has allowed any permit-holders to examine or cross-examine witnesses and such a procedure before the authority is not seen prescribed under S.60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the light of the above, it appears to me idle to contend (it was not contended by the Government Pleader that no petition has been filed) that no petition such as Ext. P2 was filed before the Regional Transport Authority. The basis of the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, therefore, drops to the ground. 3. In the light of the above, it appears to me idle to contend (it was not contended by the Government Pleader that no petition has been filed) that no petition such as Ext. P2 was filed before the Regional Transport Authority. The basis of the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, therefore, drops to the ground. 3. Though S.60 of the Act has not prescribed that witnesses ought to be examined by a person against whom a notice has been issued to show cause why action should not be taken under that section, I think, that before any orders are passed the procedure should be followed by which sufficient opportunity is given to that person to explain situations which may appear against him either by cross-examination of those who gave statements and or by examining witnesses. This must be so in the case of every authority functioning in a quasi-judicial manner and I am of the view that the Regional Transport Authority while functioning under S.60 of the Act can function only as a quasi-judicial authority. In the light of the above, I accept the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the order, Ext. P4. I therefore quash Exts. P4 and P5 and allow- this writ application. I, however, make no order as to costs. Allowed.