K.SATHYAN Vs. K.K.BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.7 to the writ petition is the appellant. He filed this writ appeal challenging the judgment dated 16.3.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)1009/2017. Without going into the several facts, suffice it to say that the learned Single Judge found it to be virtually an admitted position that upon remand by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Regional Transport Authority was to consider the cases of the writ petitioner, respondent No.4 and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). In fact notices were issued by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority for such a hearing, and it was the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority who heard the matter but orders were passed by the Regional Transport Authority. Learned Single Judge found that this was a procedure unknown to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, he set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and remanded the same to Regional Transport Authority for fresh hearing in accordance with law.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal submits that a comparison of Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which specifically provides for an opportunity to be granted to persons to be heard when Section 103 thereof, which makes no mention of hearing, would show that impliedly hearing is excluded from the provisions of Section 103 .

(3.) In our view, this submission cannot be accepted for more than one reason. An order passed under Section 103 would amount to cancellation of a permit already granted. Undoubtedly,it would have severe civil consequences. This will establish that if any action administrative or quasi judicial is to be taken to the prejudice of a person having adverse effect on him and having civil consequences, the person has to be heard and any action taken or order passed without hearing would be void ab initio being in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, according to us, the submission that no hearing is required cannot be accepted. Insofar as the second submission that Section 86 provides for hearing whereas Section 103 does not so provide is concerned, we make it clear that the Apex Court in the case of S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 in paragraph 10 held thus: