B T THIPPAJJA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking the quashing of the resolution dated 29-1-1987 of the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga (R.T.A.), by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. That resolution reads thus :

(2.) It was the submission of Shri P.R. Sreerangaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the said resolution purported to have been made under subsection (3) of Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act), could not have been so made without a prior decision that the petitioner's stage carriage permit was liable to be cancelled, in that, the petitioner had either failed to show reasonable cause for not using the motor vehicle on the route in accordance with the purpose of the permit or the cause shown by him for not so using the motor vehicle was not found to be reasonable. There is merit in the submission of Shri P. R. Sreerangaiah for the reasons which I shall state after briefly referring to the facts of the case.

(3.) The petitioner being the holder of a stage carriage permit for operating a motor vehicle on the route-Chitradurga to Karpehalli was using a motor vehicle on that route every day. But, he stopped the use of that motor vehicle from 12-11-1986 and onwards. This non-user of the motor vehicle by the petitioner made the R.T.A call upon him to furnish an explanation as to why his permit should not be cancelled fot non-user of the motor vehicle according to the purpose of the permit. The petitioner's Counsel, who appeared before the R.T.A. pursuant to the said notice, explained to it orally the reasons as to why the petitioner could not use the motor vehicle on the route in accordance with the purpose of the permit. The R.T.A.> which heard the reasons, failed to record a finding that they (the reasons) did not constitute a reasonable cause for non-user of the motor vehicle by the petitioner in accordance with the purpose of the permit, as could be seen from its resolution, adverted to earlier. It also did not decide that the petitioner's permit was liable to be cancelled for want of reasonable cause as to the non-user of the motor vehicle in accordance with its (permit's) purpose, as becomes clear from a perusal of the same resolution. This is the context in which quashing of the said resolution of the R.T.A. has come to be sought.