GANAPPAYYA GOVIND Vs. DY SUPDT OF POLICE KARAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.MEG 7852. The vehicle is covered by a public carrier permit bearing No. P. Puc. No. 426/NK/ 81-82 issued by the Secretary. Regional Transport Authority, Karwar. The said permit was valid upto 18th May 1986.

(2.) On 29/4/81 the vehicle was checked by the first respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karwar Sub-Division, Uthara Kannada. He found that the vehicle was carrying 38 passengers on hire basis. Therefore he issued a show cause notice under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S 33 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner under sub-section (1) of S. 33 of the Act. Thereafter the registration certificate of the vehicle was suspended by the first respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police by an order made on 25-9-81. Aggrieved by that order petitioner preferred an appeal as provided for to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner for Transport in Karntaka, Bangalore. The appeal came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India inter-alia contending that the order of suspension of the registration certificate is contrary to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of S 33 of the Act and therefore liable to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. K.H. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioner gargued that the carrying of passengers in the vehicle by the petitioner is violative only of the conditions of the permit and therefore action is permitted to be taken under S 60 of the Act and that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to proceed to make an order of suspension under Clause (b) of sub-sec (1) of S 33 of the Act. The thrust of the argument is that the permit covering the vehicle in question imposes condition not to carry passengers and therefore carrying of passengers has become a breach of the conditions of the permit and nothing else. Infact reliance has been placed on the decision of S. R. Rangaiah v. R T 0, Bellary (1) in which it has been held on the facts of that case that the procedure in case of violation of conditons of permit is to pass an order only under S 60 of the Act and not under S 33 of the Act. The facts of that case were that a certain stage carriage operator who had a permit for a particular route, operated outside that route as a stage carriage, In other words, that permit covered carrying of passengers on hire basis on a specified route but it carried the passengers on a different route, In that circumstance it was held to be only breach of the conditions of the permit and therefore liable to be dealt with under S 60 of the Act.