# NEW SAMUNDRI TRANSPORT CO. (P) LTD v. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 218
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-10-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1975
- **Bench:** A. Alagiriswami, P. K. Goswami, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/new-samundri-transport-co-p-ltd-v-state-of-punjab-others-6769
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Motor Ve/1ic/es Act, 1939-S. 60 (1 )-Scope of.
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.
C
On receipt of reports and complaints regarding the appellant, the
State
D
E
F
Transport Commissioner issued a show cauSI! notice to it without speeifying
therein the nature of complaints.
Action was taken for cenoollation 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 o.r 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 bas 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. UnJess 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.
[2200: 221Dl

## Text

A
B
218
NEW SAMUNDRI TRANSPORT CO. (P) LTD.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
October 9, 1975
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Motor Ve/1ic/es Act, 1939-S. 60 (1 )-Scope of.
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.
C
On receipt of reports and complaints regarding the appellant, the
State
D
E
F
Transport Commissioner issued a show cauSI! notice to it without speeifying
therein the nature of complaints.
Action was taken for cenoollation 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 o.r 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 bas 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. UnJess 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.
[2200: 221Dl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 379 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.
Hardya! Hardy, S. K. Mehta, K. B. Nagaraja, P.
N.
Puri,
M.
Qamaruddin and R. K. Khanna, for the appellant.
0. P. Shanna, for respondent No. 1.
G
Luxllii Grover and S. S . .Tauhar, for respondent No. 3.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Gosw'AMI 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 Sta~e Transport·Appellate Tribunal, Punjab.
' .
I
The appellant is a private limited company carrying on transport
busines5 over a long period. The company was granted 33 stage
~
'
/
•
NEW SAMUNDRI TRANSPORT co. v. PUNJAB (Goswami, J.) 219
carriage permits for various routes. It had a sanctioned fl~et of 35
transport vehicles. On receipt of several r.eP?rls a~d complamts fr?m
various sources, the State Transport Comm1ss1oner issued the followmg
show cause notice to the appellant on March 28, 1974 :-
"Regd. A.O.
.From:
To
S. Balinder Singh, IAS,
State Transport Commissioner,
Punjab.
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
conditi'on 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, wh() ·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 which was
sent under postal certificate".
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
We will, however, proceed on the assumption that no explanation wa~
sent by the .appellant to the Com~issroner .. Even so a manifestly wrong
procedure m a departmental act10n of this nature is obvious on tht'
face of the above notice resulting in violation of the principles ot
natural justice.
·
The notice was issued under sectioIT 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 pennit 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
11sc
the
vehicle or vehicles for the purposes for which the
permit was-granted; or
(f) if the holder of the pem1it acquires the citizenship of
any foreign country :
Provided that no permit shall be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the lrolder 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 6<'{1) (tl) and (f).
It is
true that for each permit the permit-h·older is responsible and he is the
person who has to subniit 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 o( section 60.
H
What we find in this case is a kind of bald nc~ice making no reference to any particular permit for cancellation or suspension of which
action has been taken. It is as if all the 33 pem1its were going to be
suspended or cancelled. It is clear that after receipt of the vario"us
reports the Commissioner did not apply his mind to scrutinise the same
.
.
•
,
/
.,
' .
t
'
~EW SAMUNDRI TRANSPORT co. v. PUNJAB (Goswami, J.) 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. Froth the list of prosecutions we
find only 15 vehicles are involved and most of the cases are of over7
loading.
Some of the cases relate to non-accompaniment with the
vehicles of registration certificates and other documents.
In some
cases, against certain vehicles, the till)e schedule was not kept and
certain trips were missed. We are not at all on the merits of these
prosecutions.
What is important in a departmental action of this type for 'liolation
of conditions of permit is that it must relate to the particular permits
appertaining to concerned vehicles. It is qf utmost importance that
charges are made with reference to each permit in clear t~rms in order
to enable the permit-holder to furnish his explanation. Proviso to sec..
tion 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 priviso 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.
A
c
D
E