B. T. THIPPAJJA v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — 1987 DIGILAW 247 (KAR)

VENKATACHALA. J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking the quashing of the resolution dated 29-1-1987 of the Regional transport Authority, chitradurga (R. T. A.), by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. That resolution reads thus :"the R. T. A. heard the 'counsel for the permit holder and perused the records. It is seen from -the records that the permit holder is not operating the service from 12-11-1986 and stiii continues to be under non-operation. Therefore, the R. T. A. resolved to grant two months time subject to payment of compounding fine according to slab fixed as required u/s 60 of the M. V. Act, 1939, in lieu of cancellation of permit. 9 to 90 days-Rs. 10/- per day; 0 to 180 days-Rs. 25/- per day 0 to 365 days-Rs, 50/- per day. If the permit holder fails to resume operation of service on the route in question within two months as agreed upon by him besides remitting the compounding fine, the permit stands automatically cancelled without any notice. " ( 2 ) IT was the submission of Shri p. R. Sreerangaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the said resolution purported to have been made under subsection (3) of Section 60 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act), could not have been so made without a prior decision that the petitioner's stage carriage permit was liable to be cancelled, in that, the petitioner had either failed to show reasonable cause for not using the motor vehicle on the route in accordance with the purpose of the permit or the cause shown by him for not so using the motor vehicle was not found to be reasonable. There is merit in the submission of Shri p. R. Sreerangaiah for the reasons which i shall state after briefly referring to the facts of the case. ( 3 ) THE petitioner being the holder of a stage carriage permit for operating a motor vehicle on the route-Chitradurga to Karpehalli was using a motor vehicle on that route every day. But, he stopped the use of that motor vehicle from 12-11-1986 and onwards. ( 3 ) THE petitioner being the holder of a stage carriage permit for operating a motor vehicle on the route-Chitradurga to Karpehalli was using a motor vehicle on that route every day. But, he stopped the use of that motor vehicle from 12-11-1986 and onwards. This non-user of the motor vehicle by the petitioner made the r. T. A call upon him to furnish an explanation as to why his permit should not be cancelled fot non-user of the motor vehicle according to the purpose of the permit. The petitioner's Counsel, who appeared before the R. T. A. pursuant to the said notice, explained to it orally the reasons as to why the petitioner could not use the motor vehicle on the route in accordance with the purpose of the permit. The R. T. A.> which heard the reasons, failed to record a finding that they (the reasons) did not constitute a reasonable cause for non-user of the motor vehicle by the petitioner in accordance with the purpose of the permit, as could be seen from its resolution, adverted to earlier. It also did not decide that the petitioner's permit was liable to be cancelled for want of reasonable cause as to the non-user of the motor vehicle in accordance with its (permit's) purpose, as becomes clear from a perusal of the same resolution. This is the context in which quashing of the said resolution of the R. T. A. has come to be sought. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the R. T. A. , which issues a stage carriage permit, has power to cancel such permit if the holder of the permit fails to use the motor vehicle according to the purpose of the permit [clause (e) of sub-section (1)]. It is also not disputed that the R. T. A. cannot cancel such permit on account of nonuser of the motor vehicle by the permit holder according to the terms of the permit unless he is afforded an opportunity to furnish an explanation for such non-user [proviso to sub-section (1)]. But, the question is whether the R. T. A. , which does not decide that a stage carriage permit is liable to be cancelled for nonuser of a motor vehicle in terms of such permit, could proceed to make an order as provided for in sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Act. But, the question is whether the R. T. A. , which does not decide that a stage carriage permit is liable to be cancelled for nonuser of a motor vehicle in terms of such permit, could proceed to make an order as provided for in sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Act. As the answer to this question depends on the construction to be placed on the material provisions in section 60 of the Act, I shall proceed to do so. ( 5 ) SECTION 60 of the Act, in so far it bears upon the point, reads :"60. Cancellation. . . . . . . . of permits :- (1) the Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit. (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) If the holder of the permit not being a private carrier's permit fails without raasonable cause to use the vehicle or vehicles for the purpose for which the permit was granted. (f ). . . . . . . . . . . Provided that no permit shall not be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation. (1a) (1b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Where a permit is liable to be cancelled. . . . . . . . under clause (e) of subsection (1 ). . . . . . . to cancel the permit if the Holder of the permit agrees to pay a certain sum of money. . . . . . . . . . . notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the transport authority may, instead of cancelling. . . . . . . under clause (e) of subsection (1 ). . . . . . . to cancel the permit if the Holder of the permit agrees to pay a certain sum of money. . . . . . . . . . . notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the transport authority may, instead of cancelling. . . . . . . . the permit. . . . . . . . recover from the holder of the permit the sum of money agreed upon. " (Emphasis supplied) sub-section (1) read along with clause (e) thereof empowers a Transport authority, which has granted a stage carriage permit, to cancel the same if the holder of such permit fails, without reasonable causel to use the motor vehicle according to the purpose of the permit. However, the proviso to sub-section (1) thereof requires that the Transport authority shall afford to the holder of a permit an opportunity of furnishing an explanation against cancellation of his permit. Then comes sub-section (3), which vests in the Transport Authority the discretion not to cancel the permit concerned as such, if the holder of such permit agrees to pay a certain sum of money. The transport Authority, as seen from the above provisions of Section 60, could initiate action against a stage carriage permit holder for cancellation of his permit on the ground of non-user of the motor vehicle according to the purpose of such permit by calling upon him to furnish an explanation thereto, if any. If the explanation to be furnished appeals to the Transport Authority to be a reasonable cause for the non-user of the motor vehicle according to the purpose of the permit, such Transport Authority shall drop the proposed cancellation. However, if no explanation is furnished by the permit holder or the explanation furnished by him does not, in the opinion of the transport Authority, constitute a reasonable cause for non-user of the motor vehicle in accordance with the puropose of the permit, such Transpon Authority may proceed to cancel the permit as proposed and make an order finding that the permit is liable to be cancelled. Even then, actual cancellation of the permit may not be done by it (Transport Authority) if the permit holder agrees to pay a certain sum of money in lieu of such cancellation. Even then, actual cancellation of the permit may not be done by it (Transport Authority) if the permit holder agrees to pay a certain sum of money in lieu of such cancellation. But the opening words 'where a permit is liable to be cancelled' occurring in subsection (3) of Section 60, hold the key to the position that the action to be taken by the Transport Authority under that sub-section necessarily depends on its prior decision that that permit of the holder was liable to be cancelled. ln other words, the said opening words of sub-section (1) put an embargo on the concerned Transport Authority from proceeding to act under that sub-section in the absence of the pre-requisite, to wit, its prior decision that the permit of the holder was liable to be cancelled. If the provisions of Section 60 above are to be so construed, it follows that the action, if any, taken by a Transport Authority under sub-section (3) thereof in the absence of prior decision that the permit concerned was liable to be cancelled, has to be regarded as one without jurisdiction. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, as can be seen from the resolution of the R. T. A. , adverted to above, the R. T. A has purported to exercise its power under sub-section (3) of Section 60of the Act in the absence of its prior decision, a prerequisite that the stage carriage permit of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 60 of the Act. This situation makes the impugned resolution of the r. T. A unsustainable in law inasmuch as it has 10 be regarded as one made without jurisdiction, ( 7 ) IN the result, I allow this writ petition, quash the R. T. A s. resolution impugned in this petition and remit the case to the R. T. A. (the respondent) for deciding the same in the light of this order and in accordance with law. ( 8 ) CERTAIN sum of money said to have been deposited with the respondent shall abide by the result of its decision. Writ Petition Allowed. --- *** --- .