KRISHNA GOPAL Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions can best be disposed of by one judgment. The petitioners held one permanent permit each along the Bikaner-Nokha route. On 30th March 1959 the regional Transport Authority Bikaner passed a resolution suspending their permits forthwith and asking them to show cause why they should not be cancelled under section 60 (l) (a) for overloading. Against that order the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed.

(2.) IT appears that on 27. 3. 59 the Assistant Regional Transport Officer Bikaner who is also the Secretary of the R. T. A. submitted a report that he detected the buses of the petitioners carrying passengers in excess of the number of passengers which they were allowed to carry under the conditions of the permits. Notices were issued to Krishna Gopal, and Kani Ram petitioners to appear on 30. 3. 52 before the R. T. A. and show cause why their permits should not be suspended under section 60. No such notice was issued to Binj Raj petitioner. IT is alleged by Krishna Gopal and Kani Ram that they appeared on 30. 3. 59 before the R. T. A. but were not given a hearing. Krishna Gopal has alleged in para 2 of the affidavit which he filed in support of his application that he approached the Chairman of the R. T. A. and requested him to inform him whether his. case would be taken up and that the Chairman told him that his permit stood suspended. When Krishna Gopal protested that the report submitted by the Assistant Transport Officer was not correct, the Chairman is alleged to have told him that he was not entitled to any consideration as he had appealed to the State Transport Authority against his order in some other case. This allegation has not been rebutted specifically by the R. T. A. Kani Ram petitioner and his counsel Shri Sri Narain Advocate also alleged in their affidavit that they were present at the office of the R. T. A. on 30th March 1959 in response to the notice which had been issued, but they were not called and were not given a hearing. The Assistant Transport Officer has filed a counter affidavit in which he had alleged that they did not appear, but we are not impressed by that counter affidavit as the resolution of the R. T. A. dated 30th March 1959 does not show that Krishna Gopal and Kani Ram to whom notices had been issued did not appear. So far as Binj Raj is concerned it is not suggested on behalf of the R. T. A. that any notice was issued to him to appear on 30th March 1959. We accordingly find that the order dated 30th March 1959 suspending the permits of the three petitioners forthwith was passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard.