Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 413 (GAU)

Orange Tours & Travels v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2018-03-08

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. P. Taffo, Mr. M. Kato, Mr. A. Sarma, Mr. M.E. Nagesh, Ms. N. Danggen, Mr. B. Pandey, Mr. N. Ratan learned counsels, respectively for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate assisted by Mr. D. Soki, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State Respondents. In the above set of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order, vide Memo. No. TPT(B)-19/03/2017, dated 06.06.2017, issued by the respondent the Commissioner, Transport, Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the registrations of all the tourist buses/sleeper coaches are directed to be cancelled under Section 55 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'CM. V. Act, 1988') and also directed the proprietors of such vehicles to report their vehicles at the nearest Police Stations. The petitioners have also challenged the legality and validity of the consequential orders, dated 09.06.2017, issued by the respondent-the Director, Transport Cum Secretary, State Transport Authority, Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo. No. DT/STA/11/2000-II and the District Transport Officers (for short 'D.T.Os'), Arunachal Pradesh giving effect to the aforesaid order, dated 06.06.2017, without giving opportunity of hearing and despite some of the petitioners' registrations of vehicles are still valid till the year 2022. Therefore, all the writ petitions are taken together for consideration and decision. 2. The petitioners' common grievance, in brief, is that they have been plying their tourist buses/sleeper coaches in and outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh after duly registering those vehicles with the Registering Authorities of Arunachal Pradesh and after duly insured with the insurance companies as per Rules. The petitioners have contended that the registration of their vehicles was done after due compliance of the provisions of the C.M.V. Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder, to the satisfaction of the concerned Registering Authorities and accordingly, they have been regularly paying the requisite taxes against their vehicles so registered for years. However, having observed that the D.T.Os registered the tourist buses/sleeper coaches without properly following the provisions of the C.M.V. Act, 1988 and the relevant C.M.V. Rules, 1989 and further, that those vehicles are plying outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules, the respondent/Commissioner, Transport, Govt. However, having observed that the D.T.Os registered the tourist buses/sleeper coaches without properly following the provisions of the C.M.V. Act, 1988 and the relevant C.M.V. Rules, 1989 and further, that those vehicles are plying outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules, the respondent/Commissioner, Transport, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh unilaterally issued the impugned order, dated 06.06.2017, directing all the D.T.Os in the State of Arunachal Pradesh to cancel all the registrations of all those tourist buses/sleeper coaches and to direct the proprietors of such vehicles to report their vehicles at the nearest Police Stations and to submit compliance report by 09.06.2017. Pursuant to the said order of the Commissioner, Transport, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, dated 06.06.2017, the D.T.Os of Arunachal Pradesh cancelled the registrations of the vehicles of the petitioners under Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act, 1988. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act 1988, the cancellation of registration of a vehicle can be done under extreme cases only, when the vehicle is found destroyed or rendered permanently incapable of use at a public place or the registration has been obtained on the basis of documents which were, or by representation of facts which was false in material particulars or the Engine number and Chassis numbers embossed thereon are different from such numbers entered in the certificates of the registration, on permanent removal of a vehicle out of India and where the registration of the vehicle is found obtained on the basis of false facts or if it is found after examination that the vehicle is incapable of use or its use in a public place would endanger human life and property. However, it is none of the case of the petitioners, which warranted cancellation of registrations of their vehicles under Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act, 1988. However, it is none of the case of the petitioners, which warranted cancellation of registrations of their vehicles under Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act, 1988. The petitioners have further contended that it is a condition precedent to cancellation of registration of vehicle that the registering authority must afford an opportunity of being heard to the registered owners of such vehicles so as to ensure what is their say in respect of such contemplated harsh action to be initiated by the authority, but no such prior notice was issued to the petitioners by the respondent authorities before issuance of the impugned registration cancellation en masse common order, dated 06.06.2017, aforementioned and also consequential orders, dated 09.06.2017, issued by respondent/Director, Transport Cum Secretary, State Transport Authority, Arunachal Pradesh and the respective D.T.Os. Therefore, the petitioners have emphatically contended that the Government decision to cancel the registration certificate of their tourist buses/sleeper coaches, without proper verification of the allegations of violation of the various provisions of the C.M.V. Act and the Rules made thereunder being utterly arbitrary and illegal, the aforesaid impugned orders need to be set aside and quashed. 4. The State Respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition, which covered all the writ petitions, have taken the stand that the registrations, permits/All India Permits issued to the petitioners were obtained in an improper way in total violation of the provisions of the C.M.V. Act, 1988 and C.M.V. Rules, 1989. It has been contended that the registration of vehicles (All India Tourist Sleeper Coaches) in question, were done without physical production of the vehicles, although as per Section 44 of the C.M.V. Act, 1988, physical production of the vehicles is a necessary condition before registration is made, however, inadvertently, fitness certificates of the vehicles had been issued based on the documents submitted by the petitioners in total violation of all existing norms of the C.M.V. Act, 1988 and Rules, 1989. It has been further contended that the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Naharlagun issued the permits of 954 tourist vehicles based on the documents/papers filed before the authority, although, responsibility of checking of documents, physical verification of the vehicles to be registered and then issue of fitness certificates rest with the registering authority, i.e. the D.T.Os concerned. It has been further contended that the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Naharlagun issued the permits of 954 tourist vehicles based on the documents/papers filed before the authority, although, responsibility of checking of documents, physical verification of the vehicles to be registered and then issue of fitness certificates rest with the registering authority, i.e. the D.T.Os concerned. However, due to some lapses inadvertently the fitness certificates were issued without even subjecting the vehicles to physical verifications, which could not be done due to lack of technical man power in the State Transport Department, for which, the registering authorities did their job based on the information furnished by the petitioners, without following the required norms and Rules. The State Respondents have also contended that the petitioners have been operating their vehicles outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh for more than 12 years, without applying for new registration certificates from the States, where the vehicles have been so operating or the principal place of business of the registered owners. It has been stated that the impugned Order, dated 06.06.2017, directing all the D.T.Os of the State of Arunachal Pradesh for cancellation of licenses of all the aforementioned category of vehicles as per the decision of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and accordingly, the Director, Transport Cum Secretary, State Transport Authority, Arunachal Pradesh and the D.T.Os complied with the said order of the government out of administrative exigency following non-production of the vehicles by the petitioners by 31.05.2017 and also non-submission of action taken reports by the D.T.Os as was clearly directed vide order, dated 31.3.2017. 5. The respondent/Kesineni Srinivas, a Member of Parliament, in his affidavit-in-op-position vehemently denied the contentions made by the petitioners that he engaged his friend, Konakalla Narayana Rao, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, to do necessary act to resist the stiff competition faced by his vast family transport business in the State of Andhra Pradesh and its adjoining states which is virtually collapsed, from the other transport operators in the region, including the petitioners, who are prying new sleeper coaches (tourist vehicles), registered in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is contended that after being elected as a Member of Parliament, he has disassociated with the said transport business of the family. It is contended that after being elected as a Member of Parliament, he has disassociated with the said transport business of the family. According to the said respondent, many private transport operators had approached him with a grievance that a large number of sleeper buses and tourist vehicles, which are illegally registered in the State of Arunachal Pradesh have been operating in the State of Andhra Pradesh and its adjoining states and that the act of operation of these vehicles is in flagrant violation of the provisions of the C.M.V. Act and the Rules, for which, he advised those aggrieved transport operators to approach some other leading political activists of the State to take their cause at the appropriate level and thereafter, he did not do anything in the matter. The respondent has further contended that the petitioners have wrongly imputed mala fide action on his part as the matter of cancellation of registration of vehicles and All India Permits of those tourist vehicles is a subject matter of the concerned State of Arunachal Pradesh, where those vehicles are registered and as such, the question of cancellation of registrations of those vehicles/All India Permits being the subject matter of the concerned state, he had nothing to do with the initiation of the impugned action by the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The said respondent has further contended that apparently the writ petitioners do not have any evidence to attribute mala fide either to the authority vested with the power of initiating the impugned action or in any manner on his part. 6. The respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 437 (AP) 2017, namely, Vallabhaneni Nagaraj Kumar Chowdary in his affidavit-in-opposition, inter-alia, challenged the locus-standi of the petitioner of the said petition as there is no evidence of any authority being issued by the proprietor of M/s. Thirumala Cabs authorising him to approach this Court for the enforcement of his fundamental or legal rights. According to him, one of the essential conditions of granting Tourist Permit under Rule 85(3) of the C.M.V. Rules, 1989 is that the tourist vehicle shall either commence its journey or ends its journey circular or otherwise in the home state, subject to the condition that the vehicle shall not remain outside the home state for a period of not more than 3 (three) months and that the permit holder shall see that every return of the tourist vehicle to the home state is reported to the authority, which issued the permit it has been contended that there is no pleading in the writ petition that the 123 (one hundred twenty three) tourist vehicles of M/s. Thirumala Cabs, whose All India Tourist permits have been cancelled were operating in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, without touching the home state either at the commencement of the journey or at the end of the journey, which fact is a material fact integrally connected with the subject matter of the writ petition. It has been further contended that because of the operation of large number of such tourist vehicles in the State of Andhra Pradesh and in its adjoining states, which are illegally registered in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, his transport business has been adversely affected. The aforesaid issue was, therefore, placed before the Chief Minister of the State of Arunachal Pradesh through Konakalla Narayana Rao and also wrote to him a letter, dated 16.3.2017, complaining illegal registration of tourist vehicles as sleeper coaches in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and operation of such vehicles in the State of Andhra Pradesh and in its adjoining states without touching the State of Arunachal Pradesh and as a result, the representation of Shri Konakalla Narayana Rao has brought the desired result and culminated in issue of the impugned orders, dated 06.06.2017, and 09.06.2017 as well as other similar orders in respect of a large number of tourist vehicles illegally registered in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The said respondent has also contended that it is under these circumstances that the respondent/Commissioner, Transport, Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh, issued the impugned order, dated 06.06.2017, whereby he directed all the D.T.Os of the State to cancel the registrations and All India Permits of all such tourist buses/sleeper coaches, which are plying in other states in violation of the provisions of the C.M.V. Act and Rules made thereunder, and accordingly, the D.T.Os issued notices to the owners of such vehicles. The respondent in his affidavit-in-opposition has highlighted the illegalities committed by the Transport Officials of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, while issuing the registrations and permits to the owners of the tourist buses operating in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and in other states in violation of the provisions of the C.M.V. Act and the Rules made thereunder. Hence, the respondent has stated that the impugned action of the State Respondents does not warrant any interference by this Court and therefore, the same may be dismissed with cost. 7. A Single Bench of this Court while taking up hearing in all the above set of writ petitions, passed an order, dated 29.11.2017, as extracted herein below (relevant portion): "2. As all the cases are analogous, and similar issues have been raised in all these cases, the matter was heard together. 3. It is jointly submitted that apart from these cases listed today, there are more than 150 cases of similar nature and all these cases can be disposed of on common question of law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in all the cases the private respondent is not a party and therefore, the private respondent is not required to be heard in all the writ petitions, where they are not a party. 5. The brief facts involved in this present sets of petition is that the petitioners have challenged the order dated 06.06.2017, passed by the Commissioner (Transport), Government of Arunachal Pradesh as well as the subsequent order dated 09.06.2017, passed by the jurisdictional D.T.Os in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, by which notice of cancellation of registration of tourist buses were issued to the respective petitioners in all the writ petitions. 6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsels, this Court is inclined to formulate the broad issues which has been raised by the respective parties in these series of litigation. 6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsels, this Court is inclined to formulate the broad issues which has been raised by the respective parties in these series of litigation. The broad issues are: (i) The learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that as the registration certificate and the resultant tourist permits which have been issued in compliance of all the formalities, this sort of cancellation is valid under the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, especially as per Section 55(5) and Section 86(1) provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (ii) It is submitted that the Commissioner (Transport) had indicated in his order that the Government has taken the decision to cancel the registration and therefore, the direction to the concerned. D.T.Os to cancel the permits and registration of various buses, is in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not heard before talking such decision to cancel the registration and permits. (iii) It is projected that in most of the cases, the tourist permits are valid for 05(five) years i.e. upto the year 2022 and therefore, the right to carry on the business would be taken away if such permits are cancelled without giving them reasonable opportunity for obtaining NOC from the State to continue and carry on their business in accordance of law, which would be in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (iv) By referring to the various provisions like Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is projected that if any vehicle is registered, the registration would be valid for the whole Country and therefore, when the petitioners have the necessary permits to operate the tourist bus in the various States of the Country, such permits cannot be cancelled, which will be in violation of the provisions of Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance for the purpose of permit is placed on Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance for the purpose of permit is placed on Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (v) The impugned orders are also challenged on the ground that there are provisions of appeal and as the Commissioner (Transport) has passed the impugned order, the right of appeal has been taken away which is in violation of the provisions of Section 57 & 89 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, and therefore, it was incumbent on part of the State respondents to observe the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act to grant the petitioners an opportunity to raise their grievances before the D.T.O. and if aggrieved, to prefer an appeal and therefore, their rights under Motor Vehicles Act could not have been deprived, which is not in accordance with law. (vi) Broad points raised by the learned State Counsel and Senior Counsel for the private respondent is that the complaint before the Commissioner (Transport) was not against any particular individual or their any particular vehicle, but the attention of the authorities was drawn on wide spread malpractice and therefore, the direction by the State authority to cancel the registration and tourist permits of those buses does not mean that any individual tourist bus was targeted and therefore, when the said authority directed the jurisdictional D.T.O. to take action in accordance under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioners cannot raise grievances that the safeguards relating to cancellation of the registration of vehicle was not complied with. (vii) It is submitted that the present set of cases can be classified into 02(two) categories- (a) Where the owners of the bus does not have place of residence and place of business in the State, and (b) Where the writ petitioner has not disclosed anything in their respective writ petitions that the concerned buses are plying within the state and where the place of business and residence of the owners of the vehicle were located. (viii) It is also submitted that when the act of the concerned authority of registering the particular motor vehicle within the State and resultant issuance of tourist permit itself was a nullity, there is no any infirmity in the action of the State to cancel such registration and the tourist bus permit and under such circumstances the provision of Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not attracted. (ix) As a corollary to above, it is projected that if the registration authority had illegally registered the tourist buses and issues permits, no right of natural justice flow on the petitioner of being heard before such registration are cancelled. In this regard reliance is placed on Rule 85(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989. 7. Having considered the broad parameter of which all the parties propose to argue their respective cases, this Court has taken into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Respondents have filed an affidavit in connection with WP(C) 464 (AP) 2017 and that the private Respondent has filed IA (WP) 207 (AP) 2017. It is prayed that the learned counsel for the petitioners must be given a copy of such affidavit/application so as to enable the counsels for the petitioners to effectively advance their arguments. 8. The said prayer is considered and allowed. The learned State Counsel as well as Mr. B. Pandey learned counsel appearing of the private respondent shall furnish a copy of the affidavit and/or I.A. filed by them to the learned counsels for the petitioners. 9. Registry is directed to list all the connected cases of this category relating, to challenging the impugned orders in respect of tourist buses on the next date. 10. Accordingly, this matter is adjourned today. 11. List the matter again on 11.01.2018 as agreed to by all sides. 12. The parties may exchange their affidavit within that time positively." 8. Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Sr. Counsel leading the private respondents and the petitioners in the above set of writ petitions, submitted that all his specifically represented writ petitioners are residents of outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh and they have furnished their correct particulars of address in the petitions and the affidavits filed in support of the averments made in the petitions and unequivocally explained the reasons for registering their vehicles with the registering authority of Arunachal Pradesh. Mr. Mr. Tiwari submitted that the basic reasons for registration of their vehicles was that in many States, the registration of sleeper buses is very costly and time consuming and do not even get the registration in some cases and further, the tax payable for registration in Arunachal Pradesh is less in comparison to all other states, for which the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, after getting positive assurance, preferred to register their vehicles in Arunachal Pradesh, in conformity with the provisions of the C.M.V. Act and Rules made thereunder. Further, Mr. Tiwari submitted that the petitioners are admittedly operating their vehicles outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh. According to Mr. Tiwari, the pre-requisite of Section 40 is that a vehicle should be registered with the registering authority within whose jurisdiction, the owner of the vehicle resides or where the vehicle is normally kept However, truly there was non-compliance of this pre-requisite of Section 40 by the petitioners, which amounted to misrepresentation of facts before the competent authority and as such, the registrations of the vehicles cannot sustain in the eye of law. Learned Sr. Counsel pertinently referred to the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 , wherein it has been held that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances, the Court should not allow to perpetuate the fraud. 9. Mr. Tiwari submitted that the petitioners did not withheld the true facts from the registering authority, when they applied for registration of their vehicles. Mr. Tiwari submitted that a liberal interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India brings in strict compliance of the requirement of natural justice before taking any adverse administrative actions against any person and therefore, in the event of any allegation of fraud, the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made by a quasi-judicial authority, when the order entails adverse civil consequences cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative exigency, which concept is contemplated by the legislature in Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act in this context, Mr. Tiwari has relevantly drawn attention to the necessity of observation of the principle of natural justice as reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Karbalai Begium Vs. Mohd. Sayeed & Anr., reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 , wherein the Apex Court held that non-observance of natural justice is by itself conclusive proof of prejudice. 10. Mr. Tiwari further submitted with reference to the principle propounded by the Supreme Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166 that as a general rule, suppression of a material fact disqualifies a litigant from obtaining any relief in any legal proceeding so as to prevent abuse of the process of the authority by deceiving it, but the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. However, the case of the petitioners is different here as they have unequivocally disclosed all material facts in the writ petitions and when they had applied for registration of their vehicles. Therefore, the respondent authorities/State Transport Department ought not to have cancelled the registrations of the vehicles of the petitioners abruptly, when they had issued the registrations, after due consideration of the documents, they submitted along with their application forms, without giving prior opportunity of being heard to them. According to Mr. Tiwari, when they did not suppress any material fact while applying for registration of their vehicles and in the writ petitions inclusive the fact of plying their vehicles outside the state and after paying the taxes to the state regularly, and also when the petitioners had submitted their representation, dated 6.6.2017, through the Bus Operators Confederation of India (BOCI) to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh expressing their view of falsity of the allegations of violation of the provisions of the C.M.V. Act, was pending consideration of the authority. 11. According to Mr. Tiwari, learned Sr. of Arunachal Pradesh expressing their view of falsity of the allegations of violation of the provisions of the C.M.V. Act, was pending consideration of the authority. 11. According to Mr. Tiwari, learned Sr. Counsel, there cannot be an exercise of a power unless such power exists in law and as such, if such power does not exist in law, the exercise of such purported powers would be an exercise of a non-existent power and consequently would be void, for which reason alone the impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities was without any jurisdiction and so arbitrary and void in law. In this regard, Mr. Tiwari has drawn attention to the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tulsiram Patel & Ors. reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 regarding necessity of giving hearing to the persons, in the event of becoming affected by contemplated state action to ensure fair play and justice. Mr. Tiwari further submitted that the respondent authorities have assumed wrong jurisdiction by issuing the impugned orders, and therefore, the matters may be remanded back to the respondent/State Transport Department for fresh consideration and fair decision, after due application of the relevant provisions of C.M.V. Act and Rules. 12. Mr. M.E. Nagesh, learned counsel, submitted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 414 (AP) 2017, in compliance of the conditions of Section 41 of the C.M.V. Act applied to the competent authority for registration of their vehicles and in this respect in no manner, he committed any fraud to get the registration. Referring to the principle laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Babaria & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 502 , Mr. Nagesh submitted that the respondent authorities failed in duty to act in the manner prescribed by law and without making any enquiry required to be conducted in respect of the allegations submitted against the writ petitioners and without affording any opportunity of hearing on the set of allegations reflected concisely in the impugned orders, cancelled the registrations of the vehicles which amounted to denial of natural justice contemplated in Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act. Mr. Mr. Nagesh also submitted that the petitioners were deprived of preferring appeal against the impugned orders to the prescribed authority and thereby their statutory right to appeal contemplated in Sections 86 and 89 of the C.M.V. Act is arbitrarily taken away. Mr. Nagesh submitted that the grievance of the writ petitioners should be remanded to the respondent/State Transport Department of Arunachal Pradesh for fresh consideration and decision, after due enquiry into the allegations. 13. Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel, submitted that the respondent/M/s. Thirumala Cabs is not a necessary party in WP(C) No. 354/2017 in as much as without them effective order can be passed in the face of arbitrary state action following the unsolicited complaint of Konakala Narayana Rao, dated 16.03.2017, which persuaded the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to take recourse to the aforesaid illegal, arbitrary and unilateral action of cancellation of vehicle registrations en masse. According to Mr. Sarma, no relief has been sought by the petitioners against the private respondent/M/s. Thirumala Cabs. 14. Reflecting on the rules of interpretation of the statutory provisions, Mr. Sarma submitted that ordinarily the language employed in the provisions are the determinative factor of the legislative intention. In this context, Mr. Sarma cited the judgment in Nasiruddin & Ors. Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 517, wherein the Apex Court held that where the statutory pro-vision is plain and unambiguous, the Court shall not interpret the same in a different manner only because of harsh consequences arising therefrom. Mr. Sarma also submitted with reference to the case of Kunwar Pal Singh (dead) by LRS Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2007) 5 SCC 85 , that there is no option left with anyone to give up or waive any statutory mode and all such modes have to be strictly resorted to in as much as the principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed therefor in the act. Mr. Sarma further submitted that every statutory provision requires strict adherence for the reason that the statute creates rights in favour of persons concerned. In this regard, the learned counsel has relevantly drawn attention of this court to the case of Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh Vs. Mr. Sarma further submitted that every statutory provision requires strict adherence for the reason that the statute creates rights in favour of persons concerned. In this regard, the learned counsel has relevantly drawn attention of this court to the case of Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 705 . Therefore, Mr. Sarma submitted that the authority ought to have strictly complied with the scheme of the C.M.V. Act and it was trite on their part to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before the impugned orders were passed in compliance of the conditions precedent to cancellation of the registration of the vehicles as required under Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act. Mr. Sarma has relied upon the principle propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2014) 13 SCC 506 , wherein the Court reiterated the underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, to check arbitrary exercise of power by the state or its functionaries and as such, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play in action. Referring to the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalaram Vs. Jaipur Development Authority, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 31 , Mr. Sarma also submitted that as held by the Apex Court in espousing the equitable notion of exacting fairness in governmental dealings, there is no unfettered discretion in public law and that a sovereign authority possesses powers only to use them for public good imposing a duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fair play in action'. Therefore, according to Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 379/2017, submitted that without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the cancellation of registration of their vehicles prescribed under Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act by the respondent authorities/State Transport Department was an act per se illegal and arbitrary, which is liable to be set aside. 15. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner of WP(C) No. 464 (AP) 2017 submitted that the impugned orders, dated 6.6.2017 and 9.6.2017, whereby the respondent/Commissioner, Transport, Department of Transport, Govt. 15. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner of WP(C) No. 464 (AP) 2017 submitted that the impugned orders, dated 6.6.2017 and 9.6.2017, whereby the respondent/Commissioner, Transport, Department of Transport, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and the DTP, Naharlagun, respectively cancelled the vehicle registration certificates of the petitioner, without ascertaining whether the petitioner had really violated any of the terms and conditions of the licence are illegal and arbitrary. In the impugned order, Ms. Danggen contended that the authority instead of being particular to the allegations stated that the cancellation has been done for violation of various provisions of the C.M.V. Act and Rules made thereunder solely based on a complain of one Shri K.N. Rao, M.P., Lok Sabha, at the behest of Shri Kesineni Srinivas, M.P., Lok Sabha, who is a business rivalry of the petitioner. Ms. Danggen further submitted that it is the mandate of the C.M.V. Act that a notice must be given in advance to the violator or the owner of the vehicle to make his representation to the authority before issuing the cancellation orders, but in the instant case, in violation of the mandatory provisions of law, the impugned registration cancellation orders have been issued, although no other authority except the vehicle registering authority is authorised to cancel the registration of vehicles. 16. According to Ms. Danggen, in the instant case, the impugned orders have been passed on the dictation of the Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh, which is not envisaged under the Act. It is the submission of Ms. Danggen that the registering authority under Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act may take action only for breach of anyone of the conditions embodied therein, but before doing so, the authority must be satisfied that the conditions have been contravened. 17. Ms. Danggen also submitted that the Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh has not yet prescribed the Appellate Authority in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as per Section 57 of the C.M.V. Act. According to Ms. Danggen, although the State Respondent/the D.T.O., Naharlagun, informed the respondent/Director, Transport, vide his letter, dated 1.6.2017, that notice was issued to the vehicle owners, but there was no response, there is, however, no evidence of acknowledgement of any such notice by the owner of any of the vehicles, who are aggrieved by the impugned orders. 18. Ms. According to Ms. Danggen, although the State Respondent/the D.T.O., Naharlagun, informed the respondent/Director, Transport, vide his letter, dated 1.6.2017, that notice was issued to the vehicle owners, but there was no response, there is, however, no evidence of acknowledgement of any such notice by the owner of any of the vehicles, who are aggrieved by the impugned orders. 18. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in W.P.(C) No. 464 (AP) 2017, further submitted that the petitioner did not suppress any material fact, while applying to the registering authority for registration of his vehicle under Section 40 of the C.M.V. Act. 19. According to Ms. Danggen, as the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents does not disclose that any prior enquiry was conducted into the allegations of violation of the conditions of permit by the petitioners, in fact, in other writ petitions and without doing so and without hearing the petitioners, illegally cancelled their registrations of vehicles which was per se not fair in action on the part of the state. Learned counsel made it clear that of course, no imputation has been made by the said private respondent/complainant against the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 464 (AP) 2017. Ms. Danggen, therefore, submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the respondent/authorities for a fresh decision after due compliance of the provisions of law. 20. Mr. P. Taffo, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 295 (AP) 2017, submitted that the administrative decision taken by the State Respondents is apparently unfair, unreasonable and in clear breach of the principles of natural justice as the impugned punitive action did not fulfill the conditions precedent to cancellation of the registrations of the vehicles of the petitioner stipulated by the legislature in Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied on the principle laid in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Prakash Raton Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 690 , wherein the Apex Court emphasised on the importance of observation of the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that: "the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue." Mr. The Supreme Court held that: "the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue." Mr. Taffo further submitted, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 579 , that it is trite law that exercise of power, whether legislative or administrative should be set aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary. According to Mr. Taffo, the learned counsel, as the State Respondent Authorities failed to exercise the power in the prescribed manner mandated by Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act and the impugned orders being issued under the dictation of the government are manifestly illegal and arbitrary which are liable to be set aside and quashed. In this regard, Mr. Taffo has referred to another decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 505 , wherein it was held that the authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. 21. Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 334 (AP) 2017, submitted that it is well settled that all government orders must comply with the requirements of a statute as also the constitutional provisions and that violation of the rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which amounts to, discrimination and where such discrimination is the result of the state action, it is a violation of Article 14, i.e. violation of the principle of natural justice by the state action. In the backdrop of the facts of the petition relating to the issual of the two impugned orders, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Mr. Kato submitted was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, which is guaranteed by the legislature through the plain language of Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act rendering the orders liable to be set aside and quashed. 22. Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel, subscribed to the submissions made as above by Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel. 23. Kato submitted was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, which is guaranteed by the legislature through the plain language of Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act rendering the orders liable to be set aside and quashed. 22. Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel, subscribed to the submissions made as above by Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel. 23. The State Respondents in their common affidavit-in-opposition and Mr. D. Soki, learned Sr. Addl. Govt. Advocate, contended that most of the writ petitioners, more particularly, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 464 (AP) 2017, there are specific admissions that the petitioners are residents of outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh and they have neither any residence nor place of business in the State and further, they are plying the vehicles outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh in clear contravention of the mandate of Sections 40, 41 and 47 of the C.M.V. Act. Mr. Soki, pertinently referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Son/car Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 , contended that the principles of natural justice may not be applicable in a given case unless a prejudice is shown to have been caused as the application of the said principles is not necessary, where it would be a futile exercise only. 24. Mr. Soki further submitted that the impugned order, dated 06.06.2017, issued by the respondent/Commissioner, Transport, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh was only an internal departmental communication directing all the D.T.Os. of Arunachal Pradesh for cancellation of the licences of all the tourist/sleeper coaches and accordingly, it was complied with by the D.T.Os. According to Mr. Soki, it was an administrative necessity following non-production of vehicles by the petitioners by 31.05.2017 and also non-submission of action taken reports by the D.T.Os. as very clearly mentioned in the order, dated 31.03.2017, and so the petitioners cannot be said to have been prejudiced thereby. Mr. Soki submitted that in response to the said departmental communication, the D.T.Os. have communicated reply to the respondent/Director, Transport, Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh on 01.06.2017 informing that the registered owners of the vehicles could not be located in their temporary addresses at Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh. Mr. Soki submitted that in response to the said departmental communication, the D.T.Os. have communicated reply to the respondent/Director, Transport, Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh on 01.06.2017 informing that the registered owners of the vehicles could not be located in their temporary addresses at Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh. In this context, the Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh constituted a committee to verify and ascertain the temporary addresses furnished by the representatives of the vehicle owners, but they could not be located in the given addresses. Therefore, Mr. Soki, learned Sr. Addl. Govt. Advocate, submitted that the petitioners having violated the provisions of the C.M.V. Act and Rules made thereunder, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 25. I have gone through the records of the above writ petitions and the citations referred to by the learned counsel of both the sides. 26. At the outset, it is felt apposite to look at the two impugned orders, dated 6.6.2017 and 09.06.2017, issued by the respondent/Commissioner, Transport, Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh and respondent/Director, Transport Cum Secretary, State Transport Authority, Arunachal Pradesh, respectively. The said impugned order, dated 06.06.2017, issued by the respondent/Commissioner, Transport, Arunachal Pradesh, is herein below extracted (Relevant portion)- "Order Whereas it has been observed that the District Transport Officers in the districts have registered at number of tourist buses/sleeper coaches and that these registered tourist vehicles are plying in other states in violation of the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 as under:- 1. Registration of the vehicles without the physical inspection as mandated under Section 44 of the CMV Act 1988. 2. Verification of address as required under Sec. 40 of the CMV Act 1988 and Rule 47 of the CMV Rules 1989. 3. Prescribed dimensions and specifications of motor vehicles under Rule 93 and Rule 128 of the CMV Rule 1989. And whereas the government has decided to cancel the registrations of all such tourist coaches/sleeper coaches. Therefore, all the District Transport Officers in the state of Arunachal Pradesh are hereby directed to cancel the registrations of all such tourist buses/sleeper coaches in their respective jurisdictions immediately under section 55 of CMV Act 1988 and direct the proprietors of such vehicles to report these vehicles to the nearest police station. A compliance report is to be submitted to the undersigned by 9th June 2017 without fail. A compliance report is to be submitted to the undersigned by 9th June 2017 without fail. Copies of the cancellation orders of such vehicles are also to be endorsed to the DGP of the police and the State Transport Authorities of the concerned states. Sd/- (B. Siram) IAS Commissioner (Transport) Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar." The impugned order, dated 09.06.2017, issued by the Director, Transport, Arunachal Pradesh, reads (Relevant portion)- "Order Whereas it has been brought to notice that your are violating the provisions of Rule 85 of the Central Motor Vehicle rules 1989. And whereas the government of Arunachal Pradesh vide order No. TPT(B)-19/3/2017dated 6th June 2017 has directed all the District Transport Officers in the state of Arunachal Pradesh to cancel the registrations of all such tourist buses/sleeper coaches in their respective jurisdictions immediately under Section 55 of the Central Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and direct the proprietors of all such vehicles to report their vehicles to the nearest police station. And whereas the government of Arunachal Pradesh vide order No. TPT(B)-19/3/2017 dated 6th June 2017 has also directed the Director Transport cum Secretary State Transport Authority, Arunachal Pradesh to immediately cancel the All India Permits of all such vehicles. Therefore, in compliance of the above directions, the following All India Permits of your tourist buses/sleeper coaches registered in the state of Arunachal Pradesh are hereby cancelled with immediate effect. Sd/- Illegible Director Transport cum Secretary State Transport Authority Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh" 27. Following the above orders, the D.T.Os. of the districts of Arunachal Pradesh issued registration cancellation notice cum orders of the tourist buses/sleeper coaches under Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act to the respective writ petitioners. 28. A bare perusal of the contents of the above two impugned orders along with the orders of the D.T.Os. concerned, it transpires, as a whole, that having observed violation of Sections 40 and 44 of the C.M.V. Act, 1988 and the Rules 47, 93 and 128 of the C.M.V. Rules, 1989, the Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh decided to cancel the registrations of all tourist buses/sleeper coaches as those registered tourist buses/sleeper coaches are plying in other states and accordingly, the respondent/Commissioner, Transport, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, by the impugned order, dated 06.06.2017, directed all the D.T.Os. of the State to cancel the registrations of all such tourist buses/sleeper coaches, on or before 09.06.2017. of Arunachal Pradesh, by the impugned order, dated 06.06.2017, directed all the D.T.Os. of the State to cancel the registrations of all such tourist buses/sleeper coaches, on or before 09.06.2017. Following the said order of the Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh, the second impugned orders, dated 09.06.2017, was issued by the respondent/Director, Transport cum Secretary, State Transport Authority, Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh and the D.T.Os. of various districts of Arunachal Pradesh, cancelled the registrations of the tourist buses/sleeper coaches of the writ petitioners with immediate effect. 29. The point of challenge to the above impugned orders rests in their validity and legality, which, according to the writ petitioners were not based on any truthfulness of the allegations noted therein and being deprived of them of right to reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is a condition precedent for cancellation of registration of vehicles, as contemplated in Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act, 1988. Therefore, this Court feels it apposite to look at the relevant provisions, referred to in the above impugned orders. 30. Section 44 of the C.M.V. Act casts a duty on the registering authority to require the person applying for registration of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle to produce the vehicle for inspection to verify that the particulars given in the application are correct and the vehicle complies with the requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 40 of the C.M.V. Act provides that a motor vehicle can be registered by the registering authority, in the jurisdiction of whom the owner of the motor vehicle has the residence or place of business and where the vehicle is normally kept. On the other hand, Rule 47 provides for formalities to be observed while applying for registration of motor vehicles and the documents to be appended to the application. Rule 93 specifies the dimension of motor vehicles, and Rule 128 says about the requirement of tourist vehicles to conform to the specifications of the dimensions of such vehicles. For better appreciation of the matter at hand, Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act, 1988 reads as follows:- "55. Rule 93 specifies the dimension of motor vehicles, and Rule 128 says about the requirement of tourist vehicles to conform to the specifications of the dimensions of such vehicles. For better appreciation of the matter at hand, Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act, 1988 reads as follows:- "55. Cancellation of registration.- (1) If a motor vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of use, the owner shall, within fourteen days or as soon as may be, report the fact to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward to the authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle. (2) The registering authority shall, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the registration and the certificate of registration, or, if it is not, shall forward the report and the certificate of registration to the original registering authority and that authority shall cancel the registration. (3) Any registering authority may order the examination of a motor vehicle within its jurisdiction by such authority as the State Government may by order appoint and, if upon such examination and after giving the owner an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), it is satisfied that the vehicle is in such a condition that it is incapable of being used or its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public and that it is beyond reasonable repair, may cancel the registration. (4) If a registering authority is satisfied that a motor vehicle has been permanently removed out of India, the registering authority shall cancel the registration. (4) If a registering authority is satisfied that a motor vehicle has been permanently removed out of India, the registering authority shall cancel the registration. (5) If a registering authority is satisfied that the registration of a motor vehicle has been obtained on the basis of documents which were, or by representation of facts which was, false in any material particular, or the engine number or the chassis number embossed thereon are different from such number entered in the certificate of registration, the registering authority shall after giving the owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), and for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the registration. (6) A registering authority cancelling the registration of a motor vehicle under section 54 or under this section shall communicate such fact in writing to the owner of the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle shall forthwith surrender to that authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle. (7) A registering authority making an order of cancellation under section 54 or under this section shall, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the certificate of registration and the entry relating to the vehicle in its records, and, if it is not the original registering authority, forward the certificate of registration to that authority, and that authority shall cancel the certificate of registration and the entry relating to the motor vehicle in its records. (8) The expression "original registering authority" in this section and in section 41, 49, 50, 52, 53 and 54 means the registering authority in whose records the registration of the vehicle is recorded. (9) In this section "certificate of registration" includes a certificate of registration renewed under the provisions of this Act." 31. Section 2(37) of the C.M.V. Act defines "registering authority" as an authority empowered to register motor vehicles under chapter IV. The Regional Transport Officer of a district is the competent registering authority and in view of the nature of duty exercised by him is quasi-judicial character as he is required to carry out his exclusive functions and therefore, it is obligatory to exercise his independent judgment acting with due care and caution. 32. The Regional Transport Officer of a district is the competent registering authority and in view of the nature of duty exercised by him is quasi-judicial character as he is required to carry out his exclusive functions and therefore, it is obligatory to exercise his independent judgment acting with due care and caution. 32. The above quoted Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act provides provisions for cancellation of the certificate of the registration by the registering authority, where the vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of use or has been lost and not recovered or is otherwise not traceable or its use is likely to endanger public safety. The Section also provides that the registering authorities may cancel the certificate of registration, if the registering authority is satisfied that the Engine No. and Chassis No. noted in the certificate of registration differs from that found in the vehicle or that the registration has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. 33. On perusal of the letter, dated 1.6.2017, written by the respondent/D.T.O., Capital Complex, Naharlagun to the respondent/Director of Transport, Arunachal Pradesh, inter-alia, significantly reveals that quoting of temporary address in the application for registration of vehicle is optional and therefore, quoting of false temporary address or non-furnishing of temporary address does not carry much legal complicacy and so ignorable. 34. Before exercising the powers vested under Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act, the registering authority must give the owner of the vehicle, the registration of which is contemplated to be cancelled, an opportunity to make his representation against such proposed harsh action. For effective availing of the opportunity to show cause, the owner must know what allegation is against him and what he has to answer to the authority. Therefore, the show cause notice must contain all the relevant particulars on the basis of which, the registering authority is satisfied that the registration of the vehicle is required to be cancelled, if not satisfactorily explained and disclose such particulars of the owner of the vehicle, so as to enable him to correct or controvert the materials on which the allegations are founded. The natural corollary of exercise of the aforesaid statutory obligation on the part of the registering authority is that the authority must indicate the reasons, recorded in writing, before exercising the powers of cancellation of registration, after taking into account all the facts and circumstances appearing in each case inclusive the explanations, if any, offered by the owner in reply to the show cause notice. 35. It is the case of the petitioners that on fulfillment of all the conditions stipulated in Sections 40 and 41 of the C.M.V. Act and on subjective satisfaction of the Registering Authority, the registrations of their vehicles were issued and further, in terms of the conditions of the permits, they have been operating their vehicles. It is the grievance of the petitioners that before issuing the impugned orders, the respondent authorities did not afford any opportunity of being heard to them to ensure what is their say on the allegations of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the licenses/permits issued to them, as per the mandate of Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act. What it appears from the records is that the Registering Authority acted on the direction of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, although no other authority except the Registering Authority is authorized, after proper application of its quasi-judicial independent discretion, to cancel the registration of vehicle. 36. It is further noticed that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has not prescribed the Appellate Authority in the state as per Section 57 of the C.M.V. Act, so as to enable the petitioners to exercise their statutory right to prefer appeal in the event of any grievance, within the prescribed period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of notice of order, passed under Sections 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55 or 56 to the prescribed notified appellate authority. However, as no prior notice of hearing was issued to the petitioners, the writ jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked to redress their grievances occasioned by abrupt cancellation of registration of their vehicles without prior notice. 37. However, as no prior notice of hearing was issued to the petitioners, the writ jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked to redress their grievances occasioned by abrupt cancellation of registration of their vehicles without prior notice. 37. The impugned orders, therefore, apparently suffered from the vices of depriving the petitioners from exercising their legal right to hearing against the allegations, which is primarily concerned with the duty imposed by law upon the Registering Authority to carry out the mandates of the provisions of the C.M.V. Act, before registrations of the vehicles were issued to the petitioners, but failed without any reasonable cause. Therefore, if at all the authorities, for any reason, thought it desirable to cancel the registrations of the vehicles, they had to strictly abide by the conditions precedent of notice and hearing the registered vehicle owners as mandated in Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act and can do so only after proper service of show cause notices. In the absence of such a mandatory procedure being followed, the impugned orders of cancellation of registrations of the vehicles of the petitioners are ultra vires of the provisions contained in Section 55 of the C.M.V. Act. 38. Needless to say that the cancellation of registration of vehicles is a serious punitive action and therefore, same can only be done by strictly adhering to the prescribed mandatory procedure. In order to justify the action taken to cancel the registration, the Registering Authority has to act fairly and in complete adherence to the statutory provisions of the C.M.V. Act and Rules made thereunder. The non-service of notice to the petitioners/aggrieved persons in advance and thereby not affording them any reasonable opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the registrations of their vehicles clearly offends the well established principle that no person should be condemned unheard. It was the duty of the Registering Authority to ensure that the petitioners were given a chance of hearing or at least serious attempts ought to have made to serve them with notice of the contemplated punitive action enabling them to present what is their say on the allegations made by the authority against them, which was only possible by extending to them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 39. 39. On scrutiny of the contentions made in the above set of writ petitions and the documents annexed thereto, there is no convincing evidence to show that the respondents/Kesineni Srinivas and Vallabhaneni Nagaraj Kumar Chowdary had played any direct role in causing issuance of the above impugned unfair and arbitrary orders by the Transport Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh against the petitioners. It is noticed that Vallabhaneni Nagaraj Kumar Chowdary had only communicated his grievances involving greater public interest with the sole object to effect proper implementation of the provisions of the C.M.V. Act and Rules made thereunder to the authorities and highlighting the omissions committed by the registering authorities of the State Transport Department in complying with the provisions of the Act while issuing the permits of vehicles without due care and caution to the petitioners. It is pertinent to be mentioned that a solemn duty is cast on every citizen to report to the appropriate authority whenever breach of law by any person comes to his knowledge. Therefore, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence, this Court finds no reason to attribute any bad faith or mala fide act played in disguise by the said two private respondents, namely, Kesineni Srinivas and Vallabhaneni Nagaraj Kumar Chowdary in as much as it is the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh which, in fact, wrongly exercised the jurisdiction completely undermining the statutory quasi-judicial discretion of the registering authority under the CM. V. Act. At the same time, a note of caution needs to be recorded that the petitioners cannot also be allowed to perpetuate the alleged illegalities, if found to be true, after due enquiry by the State. 40. Consequently, the impugned orders, dated 06.06.2017, issued by the respondent/the Commissioner, Transport, Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh and dated 09.06.2017, issued by the respondent/the Director, Transport, Govt., of Arunachal Pradesh and also by the D.T.Os. of Arunachal Pradesh cancelling the registrations of the tourist buses/sleeper coaches of the writ petitioners are hereby set aside and quashed. 41. The respondent authorities/Department of Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh are hereby given liberty to initiate necessary action on the allegations made against the petitioners/owners of the registered vehicles, which are brought to their notice, strictly adhering to the relevant provisions of the C.M.V. Act and Rules etc. and accordingly, to enable them to exercise their statutory powers satisfactorily. 41. The respondent authorities/Department of Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh are hereby given liberty to initiate necessary action on the allegations made against the petitioners/owners of the registered vehicles, which are brought to their notice, strictly adhering to the relevant provisions of the C.M.V. Act and Rules etc. and accordingly, to enable them to exercise their statutory powers satisfactorily. In view of the above, all the matters, at hand, are remanded back to the authority concerned i.e. Department of Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, for fresh consideration and appropriate decision thereof within a period of 45 (forty five) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in original, which shall be furnished by each of the petitioners individually to the said authority within a period of 10 (ten) days from today. 42. Till a final decision is taken by the authority concerned, in the matters, as indicated above, the interim orders passed by this Court shall continue to remain valid. 43. The above order is, however, subject to payment of all taxes/fees etc. whatever payable by the petitioners under law to the authorities concerned till expiry of the 45 (forty five) days period. 44. It is made clear that while disposing of the above writ petitions, this Court has considered it not expedient, in the interest of speedy justice to both sides, to go into the issues pertaining to maintainability or otherwise of some of the writ petitions on technical grounds. The connected Interlocutory Applications filed in connection with the related writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of. With the above directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.