IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3933 of 2010 1. PAPPU KUMAR YADAV S/O CHAMAN LAL YADAV R/O VILL.- NAVTOLI, P.S.- TARAPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER, AGENT TARAPUR BUS STAND, TARAPUR, MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUM DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER MUNGER 3. THE JOINT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DISTT.- MUNGER 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTT.- MUNGER 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TARAPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTT.- MUNGER 7. THE ZILA PARISHAD, MUNGER THROUGH DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILA PARISHAD, MUNGER 8. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE TARAPUR POLICE STATION, MUNGER, DISTT.- MUNGER ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. S.B.K.Manglam For the State : M/s Sunil Kumar Mandal,S.C.-15 and Dr. Abdus Shakoor, A.C. to S.C. 15. 2 10.5.2010 Petitioner was granted licence for acting as an agent for sale of tickets by the Munger Regional Transport Authority in terms of Rule 101 read with rule 73 (1) (i) of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992.That licence has been revoked, after notice, by order of the Regional Transport Authority, dated 8.2.2010, as contained in Annexure 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the said order submits that a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority for cancellation of the said licence along with an allegation petition of one Vinay Yadav. Petitioner, 2 on 6.2.2010, filed an application for supply of papers, reports etc. It is averred in the writ petition that on 8.2.2010 when the matter was taken up, on behalf of the petitioner a prayer was made for supply of documents and reports and pending supply thereof, a detailed show cause was also filed. It is specifally stated that the Regional Transport Authority acceded to the request of the petitioner but later on the order was recorded otherwise. No reference was made to the request of the petitioner and the show cause was rejected merely noting that Sub- divisional Officer , police Officer and the Circle officer had reported against the petitioner and as such the licence is being revoked. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. Firstly, that without supply of documents and reports, which are the basis for the proceeding, the proceeding could not be carried out. In other words, it is sated that the report of Sub-divisional officer and other authorities had to be disclosed to the petitioner, so that the petitioner to meet them. In absence thereof the proceedings are vitiated and the second submission is that once the Court had agreed to give the report then passing an order differently was not proper. In support thereof that the Regional Transport Authority had agreed to supply the documents, lawyer for the petitioner himself filed an application duly signed by him stating those facts but the Regional Transport Authority had not passed any order thereon. 3 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and learned counsel for the State, in my view, no useful purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. If one reads the show cause notice, its reply and the final order, one would find that there are number of reports that are referred for taking a decision. It is well settled principle of law that if for taking the decision, any such report is relied on then first the same has to be disclosed to the party and then after hearing the parties take a decision in the matter. Here admittedly those reports were not disclosed .Thus, the very basic principle of principle of natural justice stood violated. In that views of the matter, I have no option but to set aside the impugned order dated 8.2.2010 and remand the matter to the Regional Transport Authority to make available all reports and documents to the petitioner and then after granting him opportunity of hearing , the Regional Transport Authority would be required to pass a fresh order. Here I may note that I am not deciding the second issue whereby the allegations have been made. That order, as passed in course of hearing was to be from what has been finally recorded. That is a serious matter. Even if the party had a second view of the matter, the proper course for the authority was to hear the matter again and then pass order in public view so as to repose confidence in functioning of statutory authority but I do not deem it necessary to decide this issue and hope that 4 such a complain would not come again to this Court. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)