JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. These writ petitions are interconnected involving identical questions of fact and law, therefore, with the consent of Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Addl. C.S.C. appearing for the respondents, all the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. To understand the controversy involved, facts of Writ Petition No. 2853 of 2014 (M/S) are being narrated. 2. Petitioner is the owner of three wheeler tempo (Auto-rickshaw) bearing registration no. U.K.-07-T.A.-7230 and is having contract carriage permit bearing permit no. 294 for plying his auto-rickshaw within city routes of Dehradun region with maximum passenger capacity up to seven; petitioner was challaned on 14.04.2011, 30.08.2011 and 25.01.2014 for carrying excess passengers over and above passengers capacity of seven; each time petitioner has confessed his guilt and has compounded the offence and has paid fine/penalty/compounding fee as fixed by the State Government; vide impugned order dated 27.10.2014, permit of the petitioner was suspended for the three months by exercising jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which was also came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2014; feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 3. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that as per Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if petitioner has paid compounding fee/fine for over-loading as fixed by the State Government, then permit of the petitioner should not be suspended under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act and same would amount double jeopardize. 4. There is no dispute that as per one of the conditions of the permit, petitioner is permitted to carry passengers up to 7 only. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was challaned thrice for over-loading i.e. carrying passengers more than seven. 5. Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: “Section 86 - Cancellation and suspension of permits. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was challaned thrice for over-loading i.e. carrying passengers more than seven. 5. Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: “Section 86 - Cancellation and suspension of permits. -(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 permit, 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 subsection (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. (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 (b) or clause (e) 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 agrees to pay a certain sum of money, then notwithstanding anything 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 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 subsection (5) of section 68, as if the said permit was a permit granted by any such authority or persons.” 6. Bare perusal of Section 86 of the act would demonstrate that transport authority which granted permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as he thinks fit on the breach of any condition specified in Section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, however, no permit shall be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity to furnish explaination as to why permit be not cancelled/suspended for the reasons shown in the show cause notice is given to the holder of the permit. 7. Sections 200 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 reads as under: “Section 200 - Composition of certain offences. -(1) Any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable under section 177, section 178. 7. Sections 200 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 reads as under: “Section 200 - Composition of certain offences. -(1) Any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable under section 177, section 178. section 179, section 180, section 181, section 182, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 183, section 184, section 186, 1[section 189, sub-section (2) of section 190]; section 191, section 192, section 194, section 196, or section 198, may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such amount as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. (2) Where an offence has been compounded under sub-section (1) the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of such offence.” 8. Bare perusal of Section 200 of the Act would reveal that amount/compounding fee can be prescribed by the State Government and on payment of compounding fee, defaulter/violator may save himself for the prosecution of either of the offences mentioned under Section 200 of the Act. 9. Bare reading of Section 86 and Section 200 of the Act would reveal that both the provisions cover different fields; Section 86 covers the civil consequences of suspension/cancellation of permit for violation of either of the conditions of Section 84 of the Act or for violation of any condition of the permit; while Section 200 of the Act covers different field i.e. by paying the compounding fee, offender may save himself from the prosecution. Powers under Section 86 and 200 of the Act are independent to each other and may be exercised independently or simultaneously. 10. Since, petitioner was challaned more than three times for violating the condition of the permit, therefore, while exercising the powers under Section 86 of the Act, his permit may be cancelled or suspended for the reasons recorded. However, prior to the passing of either cancellation or suspension order, permit holder has to be given opportunity to furnish his explaination by issuing show cause notice as to why his permit may not be cancelled/suspended for the reasons recorded in the show cause notice. 11. However, fact remains that in the present case no prior opportunity to furnish explanation was granted to the petitioners before suspending their respective permits. 11. However, fact remains that in the present case no prior opportunity to furnish explanation was granted to the petitioners before suspending their respective permits. Therefore, impugned orders do not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders suspending the respective permits are hereby quashed. However, Transport Authority, if so advised, shall be at liberty to pass fresh suspension order, after calling the explanation from the petitioners as required under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 12. CLMA No. 4375 and 4376 of 2015 also stand disposed of accordingly. 13. Let copy of this order may be placed on each and every connected file.