Judgment : The petitioner has sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the second respondent passed in proceedings in R. No. A3/19512/97, dated 12.3.2001, as modified in the judgment of the first respondent, dated 9.4.2003 made in Appeal No. 295/2001-A4. 2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: On 5.3.1997, at 9.32 A.M., near Kalpana Theatre, Salem, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade I has intercepted petitioners vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-27-C-9414 and noticed certain irregularities stated below, for which, a show cause notice dated 25.3.1997 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to explain, as to why, his permit of stage carriage should not be suspended or cancelled under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner was called upon to explain for the following irregularities were noted: “(i) As per the permit, the vehicle has to ply from Salem V. Market to Chinthamaniyur via., Collector office, Vincent Balamandir, RTOs Office, Lakshmi Vilas N.S.Shed, Rajendra Choultry Pallapatti, Leigh Bazaar 3 roads, Meyyanur 5 roads junction Reddipatty, At the time of check, the vehicle was found plying from Omalur, Salem V. Market via junction five three roads, Palla patty 4 roads National hotel and Kalpana theatre instead of plying four roads, Balamanindir, Vincent. Thus, the vehicle was plying on the route not authorised route. (ii) Registration certificate, Insurance Certificate, permit, tax token, Driving licence and Conductor licence were not produced for check.” 3. The petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 5.5.1997, contending inter alia that on 11.3.1997, near Mythila Lodge at about 9.15 a.m., there was heavy traffic congestion due to breakdown of Tractor with Trailers on the middle of the road and the passengers in the bus urged and forced his crew to take reverse, and go to the town on the shorter course of the route via., Kalpana Theatre. There being no other alternative, the crew went to Salem Town via four roads and Kalpana Theatre to maintain timings. The petitioner has further submitted in his explanation that at the time of check, records such as Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and Driving Licence were submitted to the National Insurances Office, Salem for verification for the claim and requested the respondents to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to explain in person. The petitioner has further submitted in his explanation that at the time of check, records such as Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and Driving Licence were submitted to the National Insurances Office, Salem for verification for the claim and requested the respondents to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to explain in person. It is further submitted that without considering the explanation in proper perspective and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, an order of suspension, dated 13.4.1998, was passed suspending the permit for a period of 30 days with option to compound the offence by paying a sum of Rs. 9,000/- in lieu of suspension. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a statutory appeal in Appeal No. 468/98/A4 under Section 89(l)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by order dated 27.6.2000 set aside the order of suspension and remitted the matter back to the second respondent, i. e., Regional Transport Authority for disposal, in accordance with law, on the ground that the order of suspension was not passed by the competent authority, viz., Regional Transport Authority. Thereafter, the second respondent has passed an order dated 12.3.2001, suspending the permit in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 27 E 9414 for a period of 30 days with option to compound at Rs. 300/- per day. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that the second respondent has not at all considered the explanation of the petitioner and passed the order of suspension, erroneously and in an arbitrary manner. Again, the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal under Section 89(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and by order dated 9.4.2003, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part reducing the suspension for a period of 10 days with option to compound at Rs. 3,000/- in lieu of suspension at the rate of Rs. 300/-per day. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 5. V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner for taking the bus on the other route. 3,000/- in lieu of suspension at the rate of Rs. 300/-per day. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 5. V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner for taking the bus on the other route. He further submitted that on the date of check, there was heavy traffic congestion due to breakdown of a Tractor with Traitor on the middle of the road and because the travelling public urged the driver to take the vehicle to some other shorter route, i. e., viaKalpana Theatre to reach the town bus stand, the crew took the bus in a different route. Therefore, he submitted that there is no wilful intention on the part of the driver or the conductor to violate the permit conditions and hence the impugned orders are bad in law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the second respondent has erred in stating that the explanation of the permit holder was not accompanied with the daily collection memo, ticket book, police certificate, trip sheet etc., and the petitioner did not come forward to establish that his crew carried valid documents at the time of check. He further submitted that the proceedings under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is criminal in nature and therefore, the allegations should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that excepting the check report, there is no independent third party statement or any other evidence to prove the allegation. He further submitted that had the petitioner been given an opportunity of personal hearing, he would have explained his case effectively and therefore, there is a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the basis of check report alone, punishment of suspension of permit cannot be imposed. 7. A. Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submitted that for the contravention of permit conditions and for non-production of documents, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice and after considering his explanation, a detailed order has been passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the second respondent herein. He further submitted that the appellate authority has considered all the grounds raised in the appeal and confirmed the findings. He further submitted that the appellate authority has considered all the grounds raised in the appeal and confirmed the findings. As both the statutory authorities, on examination of the materials, have categorically found that the petitioner had violated the permit conditions, no interference is called for. He further submitted that Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not contemplate examination of witness and therefore, there is no irregularity in the procedure followed by the second respondent. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Perusal of the order of the Regional Transport Authority, dated 25.3.1997, reveals that on 5.3.1997, near Kalpana Theatre, the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I, Salem, stopped and checked the stage carriage, owned by the petitioner, bearing Registration No. TN-27-C-9414 and noticed the irregularities stated supra. As the irregularities constituted violation of permit conditions, the permit holder was called upon to show cause as to why the permit should not be suspended or cancelled under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the above said irregularities. The permit holder, petitioner, in his explanation has admitted that on the date of check, i. e., on 5.3.1997, the vehicle was piled in a diverted route, i. e., four roads, Kalpana Theatre, instead of the route authorised by the Transport Authorities. That apart, non-production of Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate, permit and tax token was also admitted by the crew of the bus. But the reason adduced was that they were given to the Insurance Office for verification of claim. It is clear from the petitioners own admission that the vehicle was operated in an unauthorised route. 9. If the petitioner was forced to operate the vehicle in a diverted route, nothing prevented him from producing a certificate from the Police or any other legal document to prove that there was traffic congestion and consequently, the Police had diverted the vehicles from that route. Moreover, it is the duty of the permit holder to produce all the necessary documents pertaining to the vehicle at the time of check by the Motor Vehicles Inspector or any other competent authority, whenever demanded. Non production of the records on the ground that they were produced to the Insurance Office is not a valid ground at all. Moreover, it is the duty of the permit holder to produce all the necessary documents pertaining to the vehicle at the time of check by the Motor Vehicles Inspector or any other competent authority, whenever demanded. Non production of the records on the ground that they were produced to the Insurance Office is not a valid ground at all. If the petitioner was really aggrieved by any false or wrong entry made in the check report, he could have taken up this matter to the higher authorities on the same day or immediately thereafter, explaining the reasons for diversion with necessary proof and protested the entries made by the Checking Officer. The petitioner has not made any complaint or representation against the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade I, who had conducted the check. It is settled legal position that acts done in the discharge of official duty are presumed to be valid and in accordance with law unless the contrary is proved by strong evidence. No mala fide is alleged against the Checking Officer and proved by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the check report. 10. Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows: “ Cancellation and suspension of permit: (1) The transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit- (a) on the breach of any condition specified in Section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, or (b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or (c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the pe.rmit, or (d) if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation, or (e) if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted, or (f) if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country: Provided that no permit shall be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation. (2) The transport authority may exercise the powers conferred on it under sub-section (1) in relation to a permit granted by any authority or person to whom power in this behalf has been delegated under sub-section (5) of Section 68 as if the said permit was a permit granted by the transport authority. (3) Where a transport authority cancels or suspends a permit, it shall give to the holder in writing its reasons for the action taken. (4) The powers exercisable under sub-section (1) (other than the power to cancel a permit) by the transport authority which granted the permit may be exercised by any authority or person to whom such powers have been delegated under sub-section (5) of Section 68. (5) Where a permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under clause (a) or clause (e) of subsection (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 agrees to pay a certain sum of money, then, notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (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 agreed upon. (6) The powers exercisable by the transport authority under sub-section (5) may, where an appeal has been preferred under Section 89, be exercised also by the appellate authority. (7) In relation to a permit referred to in sub-section (9) of Section 88, the powers exercisable under sub-section (1) (other than the power to cancel a permit) by the transport authority which granted the permit, may be exercised by any transport authority and any authority or persons to whom power In this behalf has been delegated under sub-section (5) of Section 68, as if the said permit was a permit granted by any such authority or persons.” 11. What is contemplated under Sub-Section (1) of Section 86 is that before cancellation of suspension, the holder of the permit should be given an opportunity to submit his explanation. This Court in Dhanmull v. R. T. Authority AIR 1959 Mad. What is contemplated under Sub-Section (1) of Section 86 is that before cancellation of suspension, the holder of the permit should be given an opportunity to submit his explanation. This Court in Dhanmull v. R. T. Authority AIR 1959 Mad. 531 : (1959) 2 MLJ 118, dealt with a question, as to whether Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, contemplates examination of any witness before suspending the permit and at Paragraphs 7 to 10, held as follows at p. 119 of MLJ: “ 7. The authorities proceeded against the petitioner for contravention of clause (b) of Section 60 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 60 enumerates six categories, of matters and provides that, should a contravention occur in respect of any of these, the permit may be cancelled on suspended for such period as the appropriate authority deems fit. There is a proviso to this which runs: Provided that no permit shall be cancelled, unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation.” It will be noticed that this Section does not require that the Authorities concerned should record any evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to say that, when the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority declined to record the evidence of the constable whom the petitioner referred to, he contravened any provision of the statute. The next thing to remember is that the authorities referred to in this sub-section have not been given power to summon witnesses or to enforce their attendance. The omission in the statute in this respect suggests that it was not the intention of the legislature that the authorities in question should examine any witnesses. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner did not offer to produce the constable before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, for his examination. 8. Another circumstance may be mentioned here. All that the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 60 requires is that, before a permit is cancelled, the holder of the permit should be given an opportunity to furnish his explanation. The suspension of a permit is a less serious penalty than its cancellation. Even as regards cancellation, all that the statute requires is that the operator should be given an opportunity to furnish his explanation. The suspension of a permit is a less serious penalty than its cancellation. Even as regards cancellation, all that the statute requires is that the operator should be given an opportunity to furnish his explanation. It seems to stand to reason that in respect of the lesser penalty the statute could not have required that a more elaborate procedure should be followed. 9. When we examine the scheme of the Act, it will be found that contraventions of its provisions and of the rules made there under are placed in two categories. In one category is placed those contraventions, for which the offender may be prosecuted and punished in the ordinary criminal Courts. Such matters are provided for in Chapter 9 of the Act. In respect of other contraventions what I may call departmental action is provided for. This is a very summary method, and all that the authorities concerned are required to do is to give the person proceeded against an opportunity to furnish his explanation. It follows that all that he required is that the person proceeded against should be notified what the allegations against him are and that he should be given an opportunity to explain them. 10. The further comment I would make is that the right of the petitioner to ply a stage carriage vehicle is derived under the Act. The extent of that right and the circumstances under which that right is liable to be curtailed, abridged or withdrawn are all provided for in the Act and the rules framed thereunder. And so long as these have been complied with the petitioner cannot properly complain. But this does not mean that the proper authorities are precluded from examining the witnesses and in a proper case they would be exercising a wise discretion if they do examine witnesses produced by a party. And so long as these have been complied with the petitioner cannot properly complain. But this does not mean that the proper authorities are precluded from examining the witnesses and in a proper case they would be exercising a wise discretion if they do examine witnesses produced by a party. All that I would say at this stage is that, under the statute, a person placed in the position of the petitioner has no right to insist that his witnesses should be examined when he is being proceeded against for a transgression of any of tile matters enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 60.” In the above reported judgment, this Court has held that in matters relating to suspension of permit, being a less serious penalty, for contravention of permit conditions and for violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, the procedure to be followed by the authorities is purely a summary in nature and it is suffice that the holder of the permit is given an opportunity to explain the irregularities noticed at the time of check. The Regional Transport Authority is a quasi-judicial authority and the procedure is being summary in nature, the contention of the petitioner that as the proceedings are criminal in nature, it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt, is not tenable. Statute does not contemplate any personal hearing and therefore, the petitioner cannot insist for examination of witness as a matter of right. 12. The contention of the petitioner that the copy of the check report was not furnished to the petitioner, so as to enable him to submit his explanation effectively, is liable to be rejected for the reason that immediately after the check by the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I, or any authorised officer, the copy of the same would be furnished to the crew with proper acknowledgment. It is evident from the impugned order of suspension that the explanation of the petitioner with regard to the irregularities were considered. Both the authorities, on evidence, have found that the stage carriage operator has violated the conditions of permit and not produced the necessary records and therefore, the findings rendered by both the authorities, with reference to the provisions of the Act, cannot be termed as perverse and it does not warrant interference. Further, this Court would not convert itself into a Court of appeal and adjudicate upon the factual aspects. Further, this Court would not convert itself into a Court of appeal and adjudicate upon the factual aspects. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the respondents. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.