JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. and K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner, who is an inter-state transport operator, has filed this writ application against the order of the Regional Transport Officer (Opposite Party No. 2) under the directions of the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority (Opposite Party No. 1) dated 20-6-1981 (Annexure-I) imposing a fine of Rs. 5000/- for allegedly overloading and allowing 15 persons to travel on the roof of the bus. 2. The Petitioner carries on the transport operation in the name of "Red Motor Service" in Bihar, and ran a stage carriage between Tata and Bhadrak. On 19-6-1981, the District Magistrate, who is the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority (Opposite Party No. 1), while on tour in Rairangpur area, detected the Petitioner's bus bearing registration No. BRB 1957 carrying passengers double the capacity of 53, besides 15 passengers travelling on the roof of the bus as stated earlier. Taking the view that this conduct, apart from endangering human life, contravened the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the route permit conditions, he directed imposition of a fine of Rs. 5000/- which by the impugned order was ordered to be paid on or before 30-6-1981, failing which the bus in question was liable for seizure and the route permit for cancellation. This order has been challenged by Mr. G.P. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, as, wholly without jurisdiction being not only violative of the principles of natural justice but also of the statutory provisions contained in Section 60(3) of the Act. 3. Section 60 authorises the transport authority granting permit to cancel or suspend the permit for a period as he may think fit on branch of any condition specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 59, or of any condition contained in the permit, or if the bolder of the permit uses or causes or allows the vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle or vehicles covered by the permit. Sub-section (3) of Section 60 which is relevant may be quoted: (3) Where a permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under Clause (a) or Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) and the transport authority is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case it would not be necessary or expedient so to cancel or suspend the permit if the holder of the permit if certain sum of money, then, not withstanding any thing contained in Sub-section (1), the transport authority may, instead of cancelling or suspending the permit as the case may be recover from the holder of the permit the sum of money agree upon. 4. On perusal of the above provision, it is obvious that any sum of money can be realised from the holder of a permit only upon his agreement to pay the same. In other words, if the holder of a permit has suffered the liability of its cancellation or suspension either under Clause (a), or Clause (b), or Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 60 and the transport authority feels that in the circumstances of the case, it would, not be expedient to cancel or suspend the permit, and to make the holder of the permit suffer by ordering him to pay a certam sum of money and the holder of the permit also agrees to that effect, then the transport authority, instead of taking recourse to cancellation or suspension of the permit, may recover from the holder of the permit the sum of money agreed upon. It may well be that the permit-holder may not like to pay any sum of money and may prefer cancellation or suspension of the permit. Therefore, the option has been given to the permit-holder. In other words, the agreement of a permit-holder to pay any sum of money in lieu of cancellation or suspension of the permit is a sine qua non for assessing any sum of money as an alternative punishment for the breach in question. Undisputedly, the Petitioner (holder of the permit) was not in the bus. Therefore, there was no occasion for obtaining his agreement in the matter. We are aware that in most of the cases the permit holder may not be present when surprise checks are made and violations are detected. Undisputedly, the Petitioner (holder of the permit) was not in the bus. Therefore, there was no occasion for obtaining his agreement in the matter. We are aware that in most of the cases the permit holder may not be present when surprise checks are made and violations are detected. In such a situation also, the transport authority may exercise the scheme of recovery of a certain sum of money instead of cancelling or suspending the permit by giving notice to the permit-holder and then come to an agreement and thus make the scheme of Sub-section (3) workable, But no action was taken and straightaway a fine of Rs. 5000/- was imposed and a date was fixed fat its recovery by exercising the authority under the provisions of law. Another defect pointed out by Mr. G.P. Mohanty in the impugned order is to the effect that the power under Sub-section (3) can only be exercised by the permit-granting authority and, therefore, neither the Opposite Party No. 1 nor the Opposite Party No. 2 being the permit granting authority could exercise the power to pass the impugned order (Annexure-1). 5. We, therefore, find substance in the submissions of Mr. G.P. Mohanty that the impugned order is vitiated in law and cannot be upheld. The application, therefore, must succeed and is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order (Annexure-1) is quashed. No costs. Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed