Judgment :- 1. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Ms.Radhagopalan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.A.Arumugam, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had made an application for the grant of a share auto permit and the same had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority in the month of June 2001. The petitioner had been issued the necessary permit to run the vehicle with Registration No.TN.30.A.4918. The petitioners vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Salem, and a check report had been issued with the following charges:- .(1) One additional person travelled; .(2) Trip sheet not available for check and .(3) Additional seat provided in the vehicle. 4. Thereafter, a charge memo had been issued, on 26. 2004, asking the petitioner to submit an explanation. Since the petitioner had not submitted the explanation, the second respondent had cancelled the permit by his proceedings in R.No.58081/A3/2004, dated 18. 2004. 5. It is submitted by the petitioner that even though the petitioner had not submitted an explanation, the second respondent ought to have passed a reasoned order for cancelling the permit. The impugned order passed by the second respondent shows that he had not applied his mind, while passing the order. 6. Challenging the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner had filed an appeal in Appeal No.651 of 2004, before the first respondent. By an order, dated 13. 2005, the first respondent had confirmed the order of the second respondent stating that since the petitioner had already been punished for 15 times and since he was a habitual offender, it was proper for the second respondent to cancel the permit, without going into the question whether the charges levelled against the petitioner were true or not. 7. It is submitted by the petitioner that he has invested huge amount of money in procuring the vehicle and in getting the permission to run the same. Further, the charges levelled against him have not been proved in a manner known to law. 8. 7. It is submitted by the petitioner that he has invested huge amount of money in procuring the vehicle and in getting the permission to run the same. Further, the charges levelled against him have not been proved in a manner known to law. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed several orders of this Court, wherein, in similar circumstances, the cancellation of permit granted to the petitioner therein had been modified into a lesser punishment of suspension of permit for a specified period, with an option to compound by paying at the rate of Rs.100/-per day. 9. Mr. A. Arumugam, the learned Additional Government Pleader, has no serious objections to follow the earlier orders passed by this Court in modifying the punishment of cancellation of permit imposed on the petitioner. 10. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that there is every justification for modifying the punishment of cancellation of permit into one of suspension of permit for 15 days, with an option to compound by paying at the rate of Rs.100/- per day. The order of the Tribunal shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.23454 of 2005 is closed.