- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining against the cancellation of a stage carriage permit under Section 60 of the Motor vehicles Act and seeks a writ of Certiorari against the order of the Transport appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan dated the 23rd January, 1964.
(2.) THE petitioner is a transport operator and held one stage carriage permit on shahpura-Behror route and another on Jaipur-Bikaner route of 235 miles length travelling over the Jaipur and Bikaner regions under the Motor Vehicles Act. The non-temporary stage carnage permit was granted to the petitioner in lieu of compensation as he was displaced on account of nationalisation of Jaipur-Alwar route of which the petitioner held a permit. There is no dispute so far. The petitioner contends that the Jaipur-Bikaner permit was granted to him by the State transport Authority (hereinafter called the State Transport Authority) whereas the respondents contend that it was the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter called the RTA) which had done so. However, the stitioner had his permit on shahpura ehror route for vehicle No. RJL 283 whereas his Jaipur-Bikaner permit was in respect of his vehicle No. RJL 6127. The petitioner received a letter No. 8930 dated the 25th January, 1963, signed by the Assistant Regional Transport authority and to that a copy of a complaint was annexed alleging that the vehicle rjl 6127 was found plying on the nationalised route of Shahpura without permit as reported by Brij Mohan T. I. The petitioner denied the complaint by his letter of the 23rd March, 1963. The RTA in its meeting of the 3rd and 4th October, 1963, vide its resolution No. 10 cancelled the petitioner's permit in respect of his vehicle rjl 6127 plying on Shahpura Beh-ror route. The petitioner appealed to the transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the TAT) inter alia complaining that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to produce his witness. The TAT by its order of the 23rd January, 1964, dismissed the petitioner's appeal but modified the resolution of the RTA by cancelling the petitioner's permit on Jaipur-Bikaner route. The petitioner has now moved this Court.
(3.) THE petitioner's contentions are that the permit on Jaipur-Bikaner route having been granted by the STA could not be cancelled by the RTA, a subordinate authority in view of the language of Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called "the Act"); that the principles of natural justice have been violated firstly because the charge against the petitioner was in regard to Shahpura-Behror vehicle for going on the said route without necessary documents but the petitioner's permit on Jaipur-Bikaner route has been cancelled; that the cancellation has been done on the alleged evidence of T. I. Brijmohan who was never examined and at least whose statement was never recorded; that the petitioner has been alleging that his vehicle had gone to the Kacha Banda on the out-skirts of the City of Jaipur for filling petrol and he has been persistently asking the specific place where his vehicle was caught plying but no one has ever cared to tell him this, and that the petitioner wanted to produce evidence, name the witness and wanted to produce him but no opportunity was afforded to him to do so. The allegation in the resolution that he had been given sufficient opportunity is factually erroneous.;