JUDGMENT The petitioner, in this petition, prays that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued by quashing the orders dated 11.2.1992 and 12.2.1992, passed by the R.T.A Jabalpur (Annexure-H), whereby the stage carriage permit granted in favour of the petitioner from Amaraiya to Pali (No. P.St. S. 14/84) has been cancelled. The said permit was valid upto 14.9.1995. It appears that the route Amaraiya to Pali is not operable during rainy seasion. As such, the petitioner was not in a position to use his stage carriage permit; and the said permit was deposited with the Tax Officer in July, 1992, for the period upto 31.12.1991. However, the petitioner wanted to ply his Bus (No. NKK-5(04) and took away his permit on 11.11.1991. The said Bus, owned by the petitioner, met with C!n accident on 11.11.1991 at 7.30 AM. It was asserted by the petitioner that, at the time of accident, 38 passengers were travelling in the Bus. It was also asserted that the Bus was covered with the certificate of fitness and the certificate issued by the Authority is filed as Annexure-E to the petition. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply. However, the respondent No.2 cancelled the permit vide Annexure-H. Petitioner alleges that he was not given opportunity of hearing. The respondent R.T.A, Jabalpur, has also filed a Caveat and, on notice being issued by this Court, respondents filed the return. It has been contended by the respondent that the petitioner obtained the permit (after depositing the same for the period from July to December, 1991 on 11.11.1991) at 3.35 p.m. i.e., after the accident. As such, at the time of accident, he was plying the said stage carriage without permit. Taking back the permit on 11.11.1991 at 3.35 P.M. was a camouflage to conceal the misdeed of plying the vehicle without paying tax. The said Bus met with a serious accident. It was carrying 80 to 90 passengers in place of 50, and was miserably overloaded. Five passengers travelling in the Bus, died on the spot. The vehicle was also not in good condition. The certificate of fitness was obtained from an officer who was not authorised to issue the same. It has also been contended that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. Five passengers travelling in the Bus, died on the spot. The vehicle was also not in good condition. The certificate of fitness was obtained from an officer who was not authorised to issue the same. It has also been contended that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has not denied the contention of the respondents that the motor-bus was overloaded. It was carrying 80 to 90 passengers as against the permissible number of 50 and that, five passengers died on the spot. A case of rash and negligent driving has also been registered against the driver of the Bus. In view of the fact that the passenger bus was overloaded and carrying 80 to 90 passengers, it appears that the petitioner has no respect for human life. He was carrying the passengers without caring for the life and safety of the persons travelling therein. It is an admitted fact that the notice was issued to the petitioner. He had filed reply to the notice. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has cancelled the permit. As such, it cannot be said that the opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. It will not serve any purpose to enter into controversy as to whether the petitioner had obtained the certificate of fitness from a competent officer. Even if the assertion of the petitioner is taken to be correct that the application for permit was submitted prior to the accident, the fact of negligent driving, overloading and apathy to the human life, is sufficient for cancellation of the permit as has been done by the respondent". Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a case reported in Kartar singh Avtarsingh v. S.T.AA. (1964 M.P.L.J. short No. 83) and submitted that mere allegation of overloading, without enquiry, is not sufficient for suspension of permit, but, in this case, the assertions of the respondent" regarding accident, overloading and death of five persons have not been controverted by the petitioner. It would, therefore, be deemed that he has admitted the assertions and the said facts would be deemed to have been proved and, as such, the case-law referred above, is of no help to the petitioner. In our opinion, therefore, the petition has no force and the permit granted in favour of the petitioner, has rightly been cancelled. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Counsel's fee Rs. 200/- if certified.