Goswami, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court summarily dismissing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Punjab.
(2.) The appellant is a private limited company carrying on transport business over a long period. The company was granted 33 stage carriage permits for various routes. It had a sanctioned fleet of 35 transport vehicles. On receipt of several reports and complaints from various sources, the State Transport Commissioner issued the following show cause notice to the appellant on March 28, 1974:- "Regd. A. D. from: S. Balinder Singh IAS, State Transport Commissioner. Punjab. To The Managing Director, New Samundri Transport Company (P) Ltd, Ferozepur. No. 455/JFI (2) dated Chandigrah the 28th March, 1974. Subject:Departmental Action. Memorandum. A list of prosecutions launched against your company by the operational staff is forwarded herewith. The offences committed are of a very serious nature. Your company is also short of fleet of fit vehicles. A copy of the joint report of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jullundur and Motor Vehicles Inspector, Jullundur relating to the condition of buses of your company is also enclosed. Due to the shortage of fit vehicles against the sanctioned fleet of 35 buses, number of services are being missed whereby the public is being put to a great inconvenience. You are therefore, required to show cause as why departmental action by way of suspension / cancellation of sate carriage permits under S.60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,should not be taken against your company. Reply should be sent to this office within 10 days of the receipt of this notice failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say. State Transport Commissioner Punjab".
(3.) The appellant says that an explanation was posted to the Commissioner within time under certificate of posting. According to the Commissioner it was not received. The District Judge, who is the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, observed in his order that- "some mischief appears to have been committed in the office of the respondent with regard to the reply which was sent under postal certificate.";