D SUBRAMANIA MUDALIAR Vs. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises an interesting question and for that purpose I shall state briefly the facts, which are relevant. The petitioner, Subramania Mudaliar, got transferred to his name, by an order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Chingleput, on 18-12-1963, the permit of bus MDH 3580 running on the route Madras to Pondicherry. The prior permit-holder for the bus from whom the petitioner obtained the transfer was one Syed Yacoob. It appears that on 6-5-1963, the Sub-Inspector of Police made a check and found that there were certain passengers in the bus who were only travelling to intermediate stations, but to whom the conductor had insisted on issuing tickets for the whole route. This was a contravention of the conditions of the permit. For such contravention under Sec. 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the transport authority, which granted the permit, may cancel the permit or suspend it for such period as it thinks fit. There is a proviso to that section which is to the effect that no permit shall be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation. Section 60(3) also states that in lieu of suspension of cancellation of the permit, the permit-holder may be given an opportunity by the Transport authority to compound the offence by payment of a sum prescribed by him.

(2.) For the irregularity committed on 6-5-1963, the Secretary of the Regional Transport authority, Chingleput, issued a 'show cause' notice to Syed Yacoob on 18-6-1963. On 17-7-1963 Syed Yacoob furnished his explanation. On that explanation the Checking Inspector offered on 14-10-1963 some remarks, and the said remarks were communicated to Syed Yacoob on 9-12-1963 for further explanation, if any. In the meantime, on 18-12-1963, both Syed Yacoob and the petitioner appeared before the Regional Transport authority and effected a transfer of the permit under Sec. 59 read with Rules 196 to 199 of the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant file supplied by the respondent (Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chingleput) contains a Memorandum dated 7-9-1962 by the petitioner stating that in the event of the transfer being ordered he, as the proposed transferee, would have no objection to the punishment being levied and inflicted against the permit transferred to him. That statement obviously has reference to an order of suspension already ordered before the transfer and which was the consequence of some other contravention of the conditions of the permit. But so far as the present contravention is concerned, there appears to have been no order of suspension or punishment passed by the Transport authority before the transfer was effected.

(3.) After the transfer of the permit, on 15-1-1964, the petitioner filed an explanation to the memo of charges for the contravention of the conditions of the permit which took place on 6-5-1963, and thereafter on 14-12-1964 the Regional Transport authority, Chingleput, issued another memo asking the petitioner to submit a further explanation. At this stage the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking for a writ of prohibition against the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chingleput, from proceeding further with the enquiry.