V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioners, who are operators of stage carriages, have prayed for the quashing of the proposals formulated by the Regional Transport Officer dated 1.10.1984 and 14.11.1984. By the proposal dated 1.10.1984 the Regional Transport Officer proposed an increase in number of trips on the route. The petitioners opposed it on the ground that they are bound to suffer by any increase in the number of trips on the route and consequently that number of trips could not be increased by the respondents without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other operators on the route. They have also alleged that no such opportunity has been given and as such the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that any increase in the number of trips from the existing number of trips is bound to effect adversely the existing operators. Further, before the number of trips are increased a survey is done and the survey can only be done after giving notice to the existing operators on the route. Where notice is not given before the survey, it would amount to a denial of opportunity to the operators and would contravene the rules of natural justice. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 349 of 1985, Daya Chand Bansal v. Passenger Tax Officer a copy whereof is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 4. Learned counsel relied on the following passage from the aforesaid judgment: - - Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Tyagi v. Passenger Tax Officer,, 1985 U.P. Tax Cases 184 has held that the principle of natural justice requires that survey of the number of trips should be conducted after notice to the concerned operator. Since both the surveys were conducted without notice to the petitioner and the second survey of the route having reported 20 return trips and not 26 return trips a day, the assessment of passenger tax on the basis of these survey cannot be allowed to stand.
(2.) WE have perused the decision of the Division Bench in Raj Kumar Tyagi (supra) where the following observations was made: - - perusal of the counter affidavit does not indicate that any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner while passing the impugned order. Likewise it has also not been asserted that the objection filed by the petitioner has been disposed of after hearing him. Under these circumstances it is apparent that the impugned order was passed in violation of principle of natural justice and cannot be sustained. It appears to us that what was stated by the Division Bench in the case of Raj Kumar Tyagi, was that before the passenger Tax was increased on the basis of survey it was necessary that an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the affected operators. It goes without saying that the passenger Tax, particularly in the case of lump sum agreement, can be enhanced in the case of lump sum agreement, can be enhanced on the basis of some cogent material on the record. If the stage carriages are actually making larger number of trips than what has been agreed upon, that it is necessary that there should be some material on the record before the Passenger Tax was enhanced for each vehicle. It was also necessary in such a case that the officer conducting the survey should produce some cogent material to show that the survey was actually done on a particular date, time and place. This can be verified by obtaining signatures of either driver or conductor of the respective buses to show that the survey was conducted at the spot i.e., on the route. In other words the object is that there should be enough material on the record to show that genuine survey was done.
(3.) WE are also of the view that what was intended in both the Division Bench cases, referred above, was giving of opportunity to the affected operators before passenger tax was enhanced, particularly where arrangement was by way of lump sum agreement. The intention would not be that notice of survey at the spot should be given to the affected operators. The entire object behind this exercise was to find out how many trips were being made on a particular day. If the operators had prior notice that the survey was going to be done on a particular date and place, the possibility of there being lesser number of trips on that day cannot be ruled out. We further make it clear that the existing operators should have an opportunity of examining the survey report, if they so want. We will make it further clear that before the passenger tax is enhanced, the affected operators, if they apply, be given oral hearing by the concerned officer. In view of the above we would direct the respondents to conduct survey spot -survey and obtain signatures of either the driver or the conductor of stage carriages running on the concerned route. After the survey is completed and before the passenger tax is enhanced, the Passenger Tax Officer will inform the existing operators, so that they may, if they so choose inspect the survey report and pray for a hearing. The Passenger Tax Officer will afford then an opportunity for the above. With these directions we dispose of this writ petition finally. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.;