Sudarsan Panda v. Registering Authority, Ganjam — 1970 DIGILAW 163 (ORI)

Judgement G. K. MISRA, C. J. :- The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle (goods truck) bearing No. ORG-2890. The route for which the permit of this vehicle was valid was from Berhampur to Huma. On 7th of January, 1970 the Junior Motor Vehicles Inspector, Girisola, found the vehicle at the check-gate on the route from Berhampur to Sumandi which is admittedly different from the route from Berhampur to Huma. On the report of the Junior Motor Vehicles Inspector, the Registering Authority, Ganjam (opposite party No. 1) in exercise of his powers under Section 33 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of the 1939) as amended by Act 56 of 1969 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) ordered on 26th of March 1970 suspension of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle for a period of 15 days from 26-3-70 to 9-4-70. In the order it was said that the petitioner admitted the offence. The reason for the suspension was given as "the Motor vehicle has been found, as per the report of Jr. I. M. V., Girisola checkgate who examined your vehicle on 7-1-70 at Girisola, being or to have been used for hire or reward without a valid permit for being used as such". The petitioner submitted an explanation on 27-3-70 that the vehicle did not ply for use and did not carry any load and was running empty for testing. As this application was filed subsequent to the order dated 26-3-70, the Registering Authority took no notice of this explanation. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order before the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority (Collector of Ganjam). The appellate authority held that the petitioner admitted before the Registering Authority that the vehicle had been used on 7-1-1970 on a different route for hire or reward. He treated the explanation given by the petitioner on 27-3-70 as an after-thought. On the aforesaid finding he dismissed the appeal. The writ application has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the transport authorities as being contrary to the provisions of Section 33(1) (b) of the Act inasmuch as the explanation of the petitioner filed on 27-3-70 was illegally rejected without being enquired into and the suspension order was based on the admission of the offence. 2. Mr. 2. Mr. Murty for the petitioner concedes that the vehicle was plying on a route from Berhampur to Sumandi which was different from the route from Berhampur to Huma for which the vehicle had a valid permit. He however contends that Section 33(1) (b) of the Act has no application unless the vehicle was plying for hire or reward. The question is wholly academic in view of the findings of the registering and the appellate authorities that the vehicle was used for hire or reward. On the complaint made by the Junior Motor Vehicles Inspector, the Registering Authority made an enquiry. The petitioner was present before the Registering Authority and admitted that the vehicle was used for hire or reward without there being a valid permit for the route from Berhampur to Sumandi. It was open to the tribunals of fact to examine whether an admission was made in fact and if the subsequent explanation filed on 27-3-70 was an afterthought. In that view of the matter, there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record. 3. It was however contended by Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department, that even if the vehicle was not used for hire or reward and was running empty, liability under Section 33(1) (b) of the Act is attracted if it was plying without a valid permit. The contention has no substance. 4. 3. It was however contended by Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department, that even if the vehicle was not used for hire or reward and was running empty, liability under Section 33(1) (b) of the Act is attracted if it was plying without a valid permit. The contention has no substance. 4. Section 33(1) (b) runs thus : "If any registering authority or other prescribed authority has reason to believe that any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction - (a) xx xx xx (b) has been, or is being, used for hire or reward without a valid permit for being used as such; the authority may, after giving the owner an opportunity of making any representation he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), for reasons to be recorded in writing suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle - (i) xx xx xx (ii) in any case falling under clause (b), for a period not exceeding four months." To invoke S. 33 (1) (b) of the Act two essential conditions must be fulfilled; (i) the vehicle must have been plied on a route for which there was no valid permit; (ii) mere running of the vehicle without a valid permit would not be enough. It must be used for hire or reward. If, for instance, the explanation given by the petitioner on 27-3-70 that the vehicle was running empty for testing on that route would have been accepted, then the liability under Section 33(1) (b) of the Act would not have been attracted as both the conditions imposed therein must be simultaneously satisfied. 5. Section 2(20) of the Act defines a permit as meaning the document issued by the Commission or a State or Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage, or stage carriage, or authorising the owner as a private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle. Section 56 deals with grant of public carrier's permit. The proviso to sub-section (1) thereof lays down that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area or route not specified in the application. Section 42 deals with necessity for permits. Section 56 deals with grant of public carrier's permit. The proviso to sub-section (1) thereof lays down that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area or route not specified in the application. Section 42 deals with necessity for permits. Sub-section (1) thereof prescribes that no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place (whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods) save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or the Commission authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. Rule 58(a) (vi) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 prescribes that every permit shall be in one of the following forms, that is to say - x x x x x x x x (vi) a public carrier's permit in Form P. Pu. C. x x x x Column No. 4 of the aforesaid Form relates to route or area for which permit is valid. The aforesaid provisions read together lead to the irresistible conclusion that a permit for a transport vehicle is always in relation to a particular route as mentioned in the permit itself. If the vehicle runs on a different route not mentioned in the permit, then the vehicle runs without a valid permit even though it might have a valid permit of another route. 6. In this case the vehicle doubtless plied on the Berhampur-Sumandi route without a valid permit. That by itself would not however attract liability under Section 33(1) (b) of the Act unless the vehicle was used for hire or reward. We accordingly reject the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that to attract liability under Section 33(1) (b) both the conditions are not required to be satisfied. Both the transport authorities have come to the conclusion that the vehicle was used for hire or reward. As such, both the conditions of S. 33(1) (b) are satisfied. The owner was also given an opportunity of making a representation inasmuch as he was present before the registering authority and made an admission of the fact that the vehicle was plying on the Berhampur-Sumandi route without a valid permit and was carrying goods for hire. As such, both the conditions of S. 33(1) (b) are satisfied. The owner was also given an opportunity of making a representation inasmuch as he was present before the registering authority and made an admission of the fact that the vehicle was plying on the Berhampur-Sumandi route without a valid permit and was carrying goods for hire. If this admission had not been made, then definitely on the explanation filed on 27-3-70 the petitioner would have been given an opportunity to establish his case as required under the section. 7. On the findings of the transport authorities that the vehicle was plying on a different route without a valid permit and that it was carrying goods for hire, the order of suspension cannot be assailed. The writ application fails and is dismissed; but in the circumstances there will be no order for costs. 8. B. K. PATRA, J. :- I agree.