Mukunda Mondal v. The Secretary, State Transport Authority And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ** WPA/158/2021 Mukunda Mondal

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Secretary, State Transport Authority and others. ... Respondents Mr. Arun S. Kumar, Advocate ... for the petitioner Mr. Krishna Rao, Advocate ... for the respondents September 10, 2021 [SR] Item No.5 The writ petitioner has impugned the order No. 433 dated 11.02.2021 issued by the respondent No. 1 whereby the authority had suspended the route permit of the stage carriage bus bearing No. AN 01/A9294 for a period of three months from the date of the surrender of the vehicle to the police station premises.

The petitioner is a registered owner of Stage Carriage Bus bearing registration No. AN 01/A-9224 having a valid permit to ply the said Bus from Wandoor to Aberdeen Bazar Pvt. Bus Stand via Sippighat and return from Bus Stand (Aberdeen Bazar) to Wandoor via Sippighat having validity till 31.12.2021. It is submitted that on 07.02.2021 a case was registered against the Driver of the said bus under Section 184/185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and on 11.02.2021 the driver appeared before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair and pleaded guilty for the said offence and the learned Court imposed fine of Rs. 7500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and the driver deposited the said amount.

It is alleged that on 11.02.2021 the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order suspending the permit of the said Stage Carriage of Bus for a period of three months from the date of surrender of the said Bus by misusing the office which was in violative of the principle of natural justice and Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

At this stage Mr. Krishna Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the writ petition has become infructuous because the order passed by the transport authority was on 22.03.2021 i.e. in the month of March suspending the route permit and the order has lost its force after three months.

I agree with such submission of Mr. Rao but it is pertinent to notice the provision of Section 84 of Motor Vehicles Act which deals with general conditions attaching to all permits. It reads thus: "84 General conditions attaching to all permits. - The following shall be conditions of every permit- (a) that the vehicle to which the permit relates carries valid certificate of fitness issued under Section 56 and is all times so maintained as to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder;

(b) that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven at a speed exceeding the speed permitted under this Act; (c) that any prohibition or restriction imposed and any fares or freight fixed by notification made under Section 67 are observed in connection with the vehicle to which the permit relates; (d) that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or Section 113; (e) that the provisions of this Act limiting the hours of work of drivers are observed in connection with any vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates;

(f) that the provisions of Chapters X, XI and XII so far as they apply to the holder of the permit are observed; and (g) that the name and address of the operator shall be painted or otherwise firmly affixed to every vehicle to which the permit relates on the exterior of the body of that vehicle on both sides thereof in a colour or colours vividly constrasting to the colour of the vehicle centered as high as practicable below the window line in bold letters.

Since the petitioner has alleged that before suspending the route permit the respondent authority has not adhered to principle of natural justice, it would be apt to note the provision of section 86(1) of the Act and proviso thereto.

"86. Cancellation and suspension of permits: - (1) The transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit- (a) on the breach of any condition specified in Section 8 or of any condition contained in the permit, or (b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorized by the permit, or (c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit, or (d) if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation, or (e) if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted, or (f) if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country."

Provided that no permit shall be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation."

Thus, it goes to say that in view of proviso clause 2 to the provision of section 86(1) relating to cancellation and suspension of the permit, the respondent authority ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.

It is pointed out that a specific case being challan vide 125/21 dated 07.02.2021 under Sections 84/85 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Amendment), 2019 was registered by the traffic branch because the vehicle was being plied by the driver of the vehicle under the influence of intoxication, for which the route permit of the aforesaid vehicle was suspended for a period of three months.

It appears from the order impugned that a petty case was reported which was disposed of on the plea of guilt. In my view that should not have been ground for suspending the route permit to ply the said vehicle in as much as no opportunity was given to the petitioner being a registered owner of the vehicle before passing the impugned order. Be that as it may, having regard the submission made by Mr. Rao, the authority is required to return the vehicle with the route permit to the petitioner to allow the petitioner to ply the vehicle as per the route permit within fortnight from the date of communication of this order.

With the above directions, the writ petition being WPA/158/2021 is disposed of, however, without any order as to costs. All the parties are directed to act on the basis of the website copy of the order.

(Shivakant Prasad, J.)