MALLIGA Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating the vehicle Tamil Nadu 23 B 9396. THE said vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicle Inspector of Vaniyambadi on 08.03.2000 and a check report was also issued. THE number of the vehicle was shown as TN-23-B-9369. Subsequently, the cheque report was corrected mentioning the number of the vehicle as TN-23-B-9396 on 26.12.2000. Based on the check report, a charge memo was issued by the second respondent on 05.07.2000, for which the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation denying the irregularities alleged to have been noticed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Vaniyambadi. THE irregularities said to have been noticed are as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner, by his explanation dated 08.09.2000 has brought to the notice of the authority, that the checking officer might have inspected a vehicle bearing registration No. TN-23-B-9369 belonging to some other person and subsequently changed the Registration Number as TN-23-B-9396, without any change in the name of the owner. THE petitioner has further submitted in his explanation that if the Driver Licence and the Conductor Licence were not available at the time of check, the checking officer should have given a separate check report to the driver and conductor, who were very much available at the time of check. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the second respondent suspended the permit for a period of 15 days, with option to compound at Rs.100/- per day. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the first respondent in A.No.37 of 2001. THE Tribunal on consideration of the materials, modified the order of suspension, by reducing the period to 10 days, with option to compound at Rs.1000/-. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

(3.) PER contra, referring to the impugned order, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the vehicle was checked by the officer on 08.03.2000 and that it was found that the Registration Certificate, PERmit, Driver's Licence and Conductor's Licence were not available at the time of check and for the said irregularities, a show cause notice dated 05.07.2000 was given to the petitioner, as to why the permit of the vehicle should not be suspended under section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Having considered the explanation in proper perspective, the Regional Transport Authority, Vellore District has found that the irregularities were proved and suspended the permit of stage carriage for a period of 15 days with an option the permit holder to compound the offence by paying Rs.1,500/- in lieu of the suspension at the rate of Rs.100/- per day. He further submitted that section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, does not contemplate any procedure of examining witnesses and what is called for from the checking officer is only the remarks as regards the factum of inspection. He further submitted that there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act to furnish a copy of the remarks of the checking officer to the permit holder before passing orders under section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. In so far as the decision reported in "1963 (1) MLJ Short Notes Page 37", learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the reported judgment relates to a case of overloading and having regard to the native of offence, this Court was constrained to hold that mere affixture of signature, is not proof of acceptance and therefore submitted that the above said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand.