G S KALBURGI Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT IN MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a motor vehicle which was checked by a Superintendent of Police when it was performing the journey on a road known as the Kolhar Bilgi road. The Superintendent made a report that when he asked the petitioner's driver for the production of the permit, it was not produced. After this checking was done on October 28, 1964, a notice was issued to the petitioner on December 19, 1964, asking him to show cause why the registration certificate of the vehicle should not be suspended under Section 33(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act.

(2.) The Petitioner, through his communication addressed to the Regional Transport Authority, who had issued that notice to him, denied that he had committed any act which would justify the suspension of the registration certificate and pleaded that although a permit had been granted earlier, it had not been issued. The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority who was the Registering Authority within the meaning of Section 33 of the Motor Vehicles Act, made an order suspending the registration certificate for a period of three months, and that order was confirmed by the Commissioner for Transport in the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 35.

(3.) In this writ petition, Sri Venkatanarasimhachar contends that the order made by the Registering Authority falls to the ground since he did not record a finding that the vehicle had been or was being used for hire or reward at the relevant point of time. We have seen the report of the Superintendent of Police, and that report does not state that when the vehicle was checked, it was being used for hire or reward, or that it had been previously used in that way. It was however stated in the show cause notice that it was so used, but of the fact that it was so used or had been used, there was no evidence whatsoever before the Registering Authority. What emerges from the order of the Registering Authority is, that that authority came to the conclusion that it was proved that the vehicle had been or was being used for hire or reward because the official records disclosed that the motor vehicle was not covered by any valid permit when it was checked by the Superintendent of Police. This is what he stated in that context: