LT GOVERNOR Vs. MAHABIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are several writ petitions involving the same question as to whether the permit of the stage carriage vehicle could be cancelled or suspended, if the vehicle causes any serious accident affecting the limb or life of any human being. As an illustrative case we may refer to the accident in which Bus No.DL-IP-2798 was involved. A young boy died in the accident. A criminal case was registered in the Police Station and at the same time on 6.4.1993, a show cause notice was issued to the permit holder (first respondent) to submit his explanation as to why his permit should not be cancelled/suspended and the bus be impounded. The permit holder replied stating that he had complained against the students of Haryana Shakti Senior Secondary School, Khanjhawla with the Principal of the School about their illegal activities and inspite of this the school authorities did not take any action and that the boy fell down from the front gate of the school and was crushed under the wheel of the bus. The driver ran away with the bus. The State Transport Authority which had issued the show cause notice considered the explanation and thereafter made an order cancelling the permit. The permit holder filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that there was no condition in the permit which was contravened by the permit holder and therefore, the cancellation of the permit was illegal. The State Transport Authority had held that condition No. 14 of the permit had been violated. The Appellate Tribunal held that condition No.l4 referred by the transport authority was only a proposal which was not found in the permit at all and that this condition found in the brochure inviting the application for permits was actually not incorporated in the statutory permit. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that condition No.l4 referred by the original authority must be read into the permit because the permit was issued on the basis of the brochure referred by the said authority. Alternatively it was contended that rash and negligent driving of the stage carriage was not permitted by the permit and the fact that there was a fatal accident in which the bus was involved, is a clear indication that the bus was used rashly and negligently.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent is right when she pointed out that condition No.l4 which was found in the brochure was not incorporated in the permit. Said condition reads thus:-