S. PACHIAPPA MUDALIAR, PROPRIETOR, LAKSHMI S.P.S. VILAS Vs. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BUS P. -2739 was found to be overloaded by two passengers at the time it was checked by the Regional Transport Officer on 8th November, 1964. When the explanation of the permit -holder was called for, he only stated that the checking officer had not obtained the signatures of the conductor and the driver on the check report, nor did he obtain the signatures from the passengers who travelled in the bus. The operator further stated that he was told by the driver and the conductor that there was no overload. He claimed further that he had ascertained from the passengers who travelled in the bus that there was no overload and he produced affidavits from two alleged passengers signed by them on 29th December, 1964 and 30th December, 1964. The Regional Transport Authority, who dealt with the matter was not prepared to accept the explanation, He found the offence of overloading established, and suspended the permit for one day. The operator appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, who confirmed the order. These orders are attacked in this writ petition.

(2.) I am really unable to find any substance in the contentions put forward on behalf of the petitioner. It was stated by the learned Counsel that the checking officer had not made a contemporaneous record, which would establish that the driver and the conductor had refused to sign the check report. I find from the records of the case, however, that even in the body of the report of the checking officer, it was clearly stated that after he drew up the check report, the conductor and the driver refused to sign it, saying that there was no overload, but that he had entered the bus and counted the passengers himself and there was absolutely no uncertainty about the overloading. He also secured the trip -sheet maintained by the stage -carriage and endorsed upon the trip -sheet that he checked and found 53 passengers instead of the seating capacity of 51, and that the conductor and the driver refused to sign the check report. It is no doubt true that he could have obtained the signatures of one or the other of the passengers, but that he failed to do so does not discount the veracity of his report in any way. The fact that the trip -sheet was taken possession of by the checking officer is positive proof that the vehicle was checked at that time and on that day. As against this, the operator's claim that there was no overload is based upon what he was told by the driver and the conductor and by two persons who were put forward as passengers in the bus at the time. The authorities below chose to accept the statement of the checking officer.

(3.) IT was urged that the Regional Transport Authority is not a judicial officer. Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been referred to, which requires that the Regional Transport Authority shall consist of a Chairman, who has judicial experience, and such other officials and non -officials, not being less than two. By a proviso, the Regional Transport Authority may consist of a single official, if the State Government thinks fit. It is urged that the Regional Transport Authority in this case being only an officer of the Indian Administrative Service is not a person who can be said to have judicial experience, and that Section 44(2) requires that even if the Regional Transport Authority is to consist of a single official, that officer should be one who has had judicial experience. This question has been considered by me in Sri Narayan Motor Service v. Ram Popular Motor Service and two others W.P. No. 2336 of 1965 where I held that the appointment of an officer of the Indian Administrative Service as the Regional Transport Authority does not infringe the section. This point accordingly fails.