- (1.) THE petitioner, who is a Cooperative Society registered under the Rajasthan cooperative Societies Act and plies a stage carriage bus-No. R J R 2814, on hanumangarh Dabwali via Sangana route in Ganganagar district, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 27-8-64 (Ex-4 on the record) passed by respondent No. 1, under Section 33 (b) of the motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', whereby the registration certificate of the vehicle R J R 2814 was suspended for a period of four months.
(2.) THE petitioner Messrs. Bhagatpura Motor Transport Co-operative Society limited, Bhagatpura, was granted a non-temporary permit valid for a period of three years on 18-4-63, and normally the permit would be valid upto 17-4-1966. On 27-7-64, respondent No. 1, (Regional Transport Officer) served a notice on the petitioner calling upon him to show cause within a week why its registration certificate be not suspended as the stage carriage bus was found plying on another route Sangaria--45 R. D. on 24-7-1964 carrying passengers. According to the petitioner he gave a reply to the notice denying the correctness of the allegations and asked for an opportunity to explain the exact position personally and for producing the necessary evidence. According to the petitioner, this opportunity was not afforded by the respondent who was not favourably disposed towards it and nurtured personal illwill on account of it having made complaints against the Regional Transport Officer prior to the matter covered by the notice had arisen. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court making grievance of the order of the Regional Transport Officer on the ground that the same was passed without proper hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. It is averred on their behalf that the bus in question was found plying on Sangaria--45 R. D. route on 24-7-1964, and was caught red handed white it was so plying. Certain tickets issued by the petitioner were also taken in custody by the Sub-Inspector, transport, Ganganagar and respondent No. 1 was himself present. A proper seizure memo was prepared at the spot in the presence of motbirs. It is denied that respondent No. 1 bore any ill will against the petitioner. As regards the contention for not giving of personal hearing, it is submitted that the proceedings were administrative in nature and not quasi judicial. Further it is urged that the respondent No. 1, himself being on the spot, no further enquiry was necessary. The petitioner contended at the time of hearing that the impugned order was bad on account of the following reasons :-- (1) That the respondent No. 1, had violated the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he did not afford opportunity to the petitioner to prove its case by leading evidence when it was demanded of him; (2) That Section 33 (1) (b) of the Act was not attracted as the petitioner had a permit for plying the vehicle for hire or reward. That provision is applicable, according to the petitioner, only when a vehicle had never been permitted to ply for hire or reward. In this connection it is pointed out that in the case of transport vehicles plying for hire or reward, it is only the Regional Transport Authority who can take action under Section 60 of the Act by way of suspending or cancelling a permit; (3) That the action of the respondent No. 1, was mala fide as he bore ill will against the petitioner. ;