http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: NEW SAMUNDRI TRANSPORT CO. (P) LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/10/1975

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. ALAGIRISWAMI, A. UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1976 AIR   57            1976 SCR  (2) 218  1976 SCC  (1) 757  CITATOR INFO :  F          1978 SC 434  (5)  R          1984 SC1622  (142,198)

ACT:      Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S. 60(1)-Scope of.

HEADNOTE:      Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 empowers the State Transport  Authority to  cancel or  suspend  a  permit granted by  it under  certain circumstances.  The proviso to the section  states that no permit shall be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation.      On receipt  of reports  and  complaints  regarding  the appellant, the  State Transport  Commissioner issued  a show cause notice  to it without specifying therein the nature of complaints.  Action   was  taken  for  cancellation  of  the permits.  The   High  Court  summarily  dismissed  the  writ petition of  the appellant  filed  under  Art.  226  of  the Constitution  against  the  order  of  the  State  Transport Appellate Tribunal.      Allowing the appeal to this Court, ^      HELD:  (1)   The  High  Court  was  not  right  in  not interfering with  the order  of the authority cancelling the permits. A  manifestly wrong  procedure  in  a  departmental action of  this nature  is obvious on the face of the notice resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. [221D; 220A]      (2) The  proposed penal action has to be particularised with reference  to  each  permit  detailing  the  particular conditions for breach of which action is sought to be taken. Proviso to  s. 60(1)  which requires mandatory compliance is nothing short  of a  reasonable opportunity  to the  permit- holder to  furnish his  explanation. Unless  the breaches of conditions or  other  allegations  are  particularised  with reference to  each permit  in the  show  cause  notice  such notice is  clearly invalid  and no action can be taken under such a notice. [220G: 221D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 879 of 1975.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  4th November, 1974 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 4346 of 1974.      Hardyal Hardy, S. K. Mehta, K. B. Nagaraja, P. N. Puri, M. Qamaruddin and K. Khanna, for the appellant.      O. P. Sharma, for respondent No. 1.      Luxmi Grover and S. S. Jauhar, for respondent No. 3.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      GOSWAMI, J.-This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of  the Punjab  and Haryana  High  Court  summarily dismissing a  writ application  under  article  226  of  the Constitution  against  the  order  of  the  State  Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab.      The appellant  is a private limited company carrying on transport business  over a  long  period.  The  company  was granted 33 stage 219 carriage permits  for various  routes. It  had a  sanctioned fleet of  35  transport  vehicles.  On  receipt  of  several reports and  complaints  from  various  sources,  the  State Transport  Commissioner  issued  the  following  show  cause notice to the appellant on March 28, 1974:- "Regd. A.D.      From:           S. Balinder Singh, IAS,           State Transport Commissioner,           Punjab.      To           The Managing Director,           New Samundri Transport Company (P) Ltd.,           Ferozepur. No. 455/JFI(2) dated Chandigarh the 28th March, 1974.      Subject: Departmental Action.                          Memorandum           A  list  of  prosecutions  launched  against  your      company by the Operational Staff is forwarded herewith.      The offences  committed are  of a  very serious nature.      Your company  is also short of fleet of fit vehicles. A      copy of  the joint  report of  the Secretary,  Regional      Transport  Authority,   Jullundur  and  Motor  Vehicles      Inspector, Jullundur relating to the condition of buses      of your  company is  also enclosed. Due to the shortage      of fit  vehicles against  the sanctioned  fleet  of  35      buses, number  of services are being missed whereby the      public is  being put to a great inconvenience. You are,      therefore,  required   to  show   cause   as   to   why      departmental action  by way  of suspension/cancellation      of stage carriage permits under section 60 of the Motor      Vehicles Act,  1939, should  not be  taken against your      Company. Reply  should be sent to this office within 10      days of  the receipt  of this  notice failing  which it      will be presumed that you have nothing to say.                                 State Transport Commissioner                                                     Punjab".      The appellant  says that  an explanation  was posted to the Commissioner  within time  under certificate of posting. According to  the Commissioner  it  was  not  received.  The District  Judge,   who  is  the  State  Transport  Appellate Tribunal, observed in his order that-           "some mischief  appears to  have been committed in      the office  of the  respondent with regard to the reply

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    which was sent under postal certificate". 220      We will,  however, proceed  on the  assumption that  no explanation was  sent by  the appellant to the Commissioner. Even so  a manifestly  wrong  procedure  in  a  departmental action of  this nature  is obvious  on the face of the above notice resulting  in violation  of the principles of natural justice.      The notice  was issued  under section  60 of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (briefly the Act) which may be quoted:      60(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 sub-           section (3)  of section  59, 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           authorised by the permit, or       (c) if the  holder of  the permit  ceases to  own  the           vehicle or vehicles 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 permit, not being a private           carrier’s permit,  fails without  reasonable cause           to use  the vehicle  or vehicles  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  cancelled unless an      opportunity has  been given to the holder of the permit      to furnish his explanation". Sub-section (3)  of section  60 provides  for composition of breach of  certain conditions.  Section 59(3)  contains  the conditions laid down for every permit. The target of section 60 is  the permit  that has been issued breach of conditions of which  is the subject matter of action under it except in cases covered  by section 60(1) (d) and (f). It is true that for each  permit the  permit-holder is responsible and he is the person  who has  to submit the explanation. The proposed penal action has to be particularised with reference to each permit detailing  the particular  conditions for  breach  of which action  is sought  to be  taken in  connection with  a particular  permit.  This  is  the  minimum  requirement  of section 60.      What we  find in  this case  is a  kind of  bald notice making  no   reference  to   any   particular   permit   for cancellation or  suspension of  which action has been taken. It is as if all the 33 permits were going to be suspended or cancelled. It  is clear  that after  receipt of  the various reports  the   Commissioner  did   not  apply  his  mind  to scrutinise the same 221 for the  purpose of  taking appropriate legal action against any specific  permit under  section 60  of the  Act. On  the other hand  taking the  reports as  they were,  which may as well have  been  general  allegations  against  the  permit- holder, immediately  action  was  taken  for  suspension  or cancellation  of   all  the   permits.  From   the  list  of prosecutions we  find only 15 vehicles are involved and most of the cases are of overloading. Some of the cases relate to non-accompaniment  with   the   vehicles   of   registration certificates and  other documents.  In some  cases,  against certain vehicles, the time schedule was not kept and certain trips were  missed. We are not at all on the merits of these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

prosecutions.      What is important in a departmental action of this type for violation of conditions of permit is that it must relate to  the   particular  permits   appertaining  to   concerned vehicles. It  is of  utmost importance that charges are made with reference  to each  permit in  clear terms  in order to enable the permit-holder to furnish his explanation. Proviso to section  60(1) which  requires  mandatory  compliance  is nothing short  of a  reasonable opportunity  to the  permit- holder to  furnish his  explanation. Unless,  therefore, the breaches   of    conditions   or   other   allegations   are particularised with  reference to  each permit  in the  show cause notice,  such notice  is clearly invalid and no action can be  taken under  such a notice. This is exactly what has happened  in   this  case  resulting  in  violation  of  the principles of  natural justice  ingrained in  the proviso to section 60(1) of the Act. The High Court, therefore, was not right in  not interfering  with the order of the authorities cancelling the permits.      In the  result the  appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court  as well  as the  orders of  the State  Transport Appellate Tribunal  and the  Commissioner are  set aside. We will, however, make no order as to costs. P.B.R.                                       Appeal allowed. 222