SUDARSAN PANDA Vs. REGISTERING AUTHORITY GANJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of the vehicle (goods truck) bearing No. ORG-2890. THE route for which the permit of this vehicle was valid was from Berhampur to Huma. On 7th of January, 1970 the Junior Motor Vehicles Inspector, Girisola, found the vehicle at the check-gate on the route from Berhampur to Sumandi which is admittedly different from the route from Berhampur to Huma. On the report of the Junior Motor Vehicles Inspector, the Registering Authority, Ganjam (opposite party No. 1) in exercise of his powers under Section 33 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of the 1939) as amended by Act 56 of 1969 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) ordered on 26th of March 1970 suspension of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle for a period of 15 days from 26-3-70 to 9-4-70. In the order it was said that the petitioner admitted the offence. THE reason for the suspension was given as "the Motor vehicle has been found, as per the report of Jr. I. M. V., Girisola checkgate who examined your vehicle on 7-1-70 at Girisola, being or to have been used for hire or reward without a valid permit for being used as such". THE petitioner submitted an explanation on 27-3-70 that the vehicle did not ply for use and did not carry any load and was running empty for testing. As this application was filed subsequent to the order dated 26-3-70, the Registering Authority took no notice of this explanation. THE petitioner filed an appeal against the order before the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority (Collector of Ganjam). THE appellate authority held that the petitioner admitted before the Registering Authority that the vehicle had been used on 7-1-1970 on a different route for hire or reward. He treated the explanation given by the petitioner on 27-3-70 as an after-thought. On the aforesaid finding he dismissed the appeal. THE writ application has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the transport authorities as being contrary to the provisions of Section 33(1) (b) of the Act inasmuch as the explanation of the petitioner filed on 27-3-70 was illegally rejected without being enquired into and the suspension order was based on the admission of the offence.

(2.) MR. Murty for the petitioner concedes that the vehicle was plying on a route from Berhampur to Sumandi which was different from the route from Berhampur to Huma for which the vehicle had a valid permit. He however contends that Section 33(1) (b) of the Act has no application unless the vehicle was plying for hire or reward. The question is wholly academic in view of the findings of the registering and the appellate authorities that the vehicle was used for hire or reward. On the complaint made by the Junior Motor Vehicles Inspector, the Registering Authority made an enquiry. The petitioner was present before the Registering Authority and admitted that the vehicle was used for hire or reward without there being a valid permit for the route from Berhampur to Sumandi. It was open to the tribunals of fact to examine whether an admission was made in fact and if the subsequent explanation filed on 27-3-70 was an afterthought. In that view of the matter, there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record.