KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The holder of a stage carriage permit is the writ applicant. This permit was suspended for a period of two weeks by the first respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, by Ext. P 4 and this order has been confirmed by the second respondent, the appellate authority, by Ex. P 5. These orders came to be passed on the basis of two reports sent by the Motor Vehicles Inspector who is alleged to have checked the vehicle on 27-1-1961 and according to these reports, the vehicle was found overloaded. The reports said that the vehicle authorised to carry 32 passengers was having 58 passengers then. The Government Pleader appearing in the case has correctly pointed out that two facts are admitted; that the vehicle was checked on 27-1-1961 and that at the time of the checking there could possibly have been 58 passengers inside the vehicle. The point made by counsel on behalf of the petitioner, however, is, that the vehicle was checked while it was in the bus stand and that the extra passengers found inside the vehicle were those who got in. This version is contradicted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector in his report dated 5-8-1961. It has also been rightly pointed out by the Government Pleader that this is not a new version given by the Inspector, for it is seen from his earlier report that the check was made after stopping a running vehicle. In these circumstances, normally I would not have interfered with the orders passed by the authorities. However, I find that a special request had been made by the petitioner by Ext. 2 before the first respondent that he should be permitted to cross examine the Motor Vehicles Inspector concerned and that he should be given an opportunity to examine two witnesses. This was apparently not allowed & a complaint was made before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has disposed of this contention on the basis that the petition, copy of which is Ext. P 2, said to have been filed by the petitioner before the Regional Transport Authority is not seen among the records sent by the Regional Transport Authority. In other words, the second respondent proceeds on the basis that there could possibly not have been any such petition filed.

(2.) In the grounds taken in the appeal before the second respondent there is ground No. 2 which reads:

(3.) Though S.60 of the Act has not prescribed that witnesses ought to be examined by a person against whom a notice has been issued to show cause why action should not be taken under that section, I think, that before any orders are passed the procedure should be followed by which sufficient opportunity is given to that person to explain situations which may appear against him either by cross examination of those who gave statements and or by examining witnesses. This must be so in the case of every authority functioning in a quasi judicial manner and I am of the view that the Regional Transport Authority while functioning under S.60 of the Act can function only as a quasi judicial authority. In the light of the above, I accept the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the order, Ext. P4. I therefore quash Exts. P4 and P5 and allow this writ application. I, however, make no order as to costs.