M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of vehicle hearing Registration No. MYN 4514. The registration of that vehicle came to he suspended by an order made on 2-12-1985 by the Registering Authority and the Regional Transport Officer. Bangalore Central, Bangalore. It would be useful to state that the said order came to be made on remand. The order in question on appeal has been confirmed by the appellate authority in No. RGN. Appeal 74/1985-86 made by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore Division. Bangalore, Aggrieved by the same, the two orders in question are assailed in this Court inter alia contending that the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity : (1) To cross-examine the witnesses though he had demanded for the same; (2) The material on which the Registering Authority relied upon to initiate proceedings were not given to the owner; (3) That it is contrary to law. ( 2 ) THE Registering Authority is empowered to initiate the proceedings under Sub-S. (1) of S. 33 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for using the vehicle without a valid permit. This Court has held in more than one decision that a vehicle is said to have been used without a valid permit even if it is used for a purpose other than the one for which it may have been issued with a permit. In the instant case, the petitioner who held a permit for the vehicle in question, a special permit, which is to operate the vehicle as a contract carriage on specified occasions. On 23-11-1984 when the vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, it was found that he was using the vehicle to carry individual passengers for hire and reward and who were not included in the contract. In other words, the gravamen of the charge was that the same was used as a stage carriage. In the first instance, the owner or his authorised representative did not respond to the show cause notice and an ex parte order came to be passed suspending the licence. On appeal, the order was set aside and the matter remanded with a direction to issue a fresh show cause notice accompanied by the copy of the check report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. That was done. On appeal, the order was set aside and the matter remanded with a direction to issue a fresh show cause notice accompanied by the copy of the check report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. That was done. In response to that, the owner made a representation in writing and he was also represented by a Counsel and thereafter the impugned order was passed. ( 3 ) THIS Court in the case of K. M. Moun v. Assistant Superintendent of Police. ( (1972) 2 Mys LJ (Short Notes) Item No. 290 - W. P. No. 2234/1969) in a Division Bench ruling has negatived the contention that the owners facing the proceedings under Cl. (b) of Sub-S. (1) of S. 33 of the Act are entitled to an oral hearing or has the right to cross-examine any witnesses through a learned single Judge of this Court in a later decision took a contrary view not noticing the Division Bench ruling rendered on 12-6-1972. But the Division Bench has however, ruled that the material on which the charge is based must be made available to the owner along with the show cause notice. That material is only to make an effective representation and no more, as held by the Division Bench. In the instant case, the check report contains the details of the check made by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, the time, the result of the check and the summary of events leading to the charge. I do not think the petitioner is entitled to any other material than the check report does not contain adequate details which would enable the owner to make an adequate and effective representation against the charge. That not being the case, the petitioner cannot make a grievance of the orders now impugned. ( 4 ) MR. Ananda Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, argued that there has been a disregard of the direction contained in the remand in the first appeal preferred by the owner. On a careful scrutiny of the first appellate order, I am satisfied that there has been no such disregard of the remand direction. ( 5 ) THE petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .