M.L. Chaturvedi, J. - (1.) This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The Petitioner was granted a Private Carrier Permit in respect of his vehicle No. U.P.D. 64 on 20 -10 -1953, for a period of three years. In the beginning of the year 1955, the Petitioner was suspected of committing a number of irregularities and notices were issued to the Petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against him Under Sec. 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. One notice was issued on 28 -3 -1955, another on 12 -5 -1955, third on 16 -5 -1955 and the 4th notice on 29 -6 -1955. The Petitioner submitted explanations to the charges contained in those notices and a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was held on 11 -7 - 1955. On this date a resolution was passed by the authority saying that it has considered the four charges framed against the Petitioner and his replies to those charges. At the end of the resolution it said that the Transport Authority was convinced that in all these cases there was a prima facie case made out against the Petitioner but the Transport Authority decided to give fuller opportunity to the Petitioner to explain charge No. 3 and the authority wanted to make further enquiries into charges Nos. 1 and 4. The resolution then proceeds, "Meanwhile it was resolved that the permit be suspended till the permit -holder has explained his case and the R.T.A. takes a final decision on it." The Petitioner did not file an appeal against this order as he came to know that the appellate authority, namely, the State Transport Authority was not functioning at that time, and it was not expected to meet till about the middle of August. He filed the present petition on 21 -7 -1955. The prayers contained in the petition are that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated 11 -7 -1955, and a writ of mandamus be issued ordering that authority not to give effect to the said resolution.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the charges against the Petitioner have not yet been fully enquired into and there is no power conferred by the In Indian Motor Vehicles Act, on the Regional Transport Authority, to suspend a permit before coming to a conclusion that the permit -holder is guilty of the commission of the acts mentioned in Sec. 60. It is argued that all the four charges are still pending enquiry and the Transport Authority has not arrived at any final conclusion as regards the guilt of the Petitioner and, under the circumstances, it was not open to that authority to pass an order suspending the Petitioner's permit. The learned Junior Standing Council has controverted this proposition and he has further contended that on a proper reading of the resolution dated 11 -7 -1955, it should be held that the Petitioner has been convicted for the commission of the acts mentioned in charge No. 2 and the order of suspension is for the commission of those acts He has further contended that the Regional Transport Authority had power to cancel a permit permanently, and this includes the power to suspend it for a shorter period. He has urged that the Petitioner should have filed an appeal against the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority and he had thus another remedy open to him which he has failed to avail himself of. He also contended that Under Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act also, the Regional Transport Authority had the power to pass an order suspending the Petitioner's permit.;