IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17025 of 2008 RAVI SHANKAR SINGH SON OF AKHILESHWAR SINGH RESIDNET OF NW AREA BISAR TANK, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. CIVIL LINES DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BIHAR PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, PATNA. 3. SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR with CWJC No.17905 of 2008 AKHILESHWAR PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE KAMTA PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF NEW AREA BISAR TANK, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT GAYA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioners :- M/S. Randhir Kumar Singh & Sanjay Kumar Pandey. For the State :- Mr. J. P. Karn, AAG IX & Mr. A. K. Dubey, A.C. TO A.A.G IX -------- 2 10/05/2010 Both the writ applications are being disposed of by this common order as common set of facts and common question of law has been raised by the petitioners. Cause for grievance in both the cases is cancellation of road permit issued to the petitioners under purported exercise of power under section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and - 2 - imposition of fine of Rs.5000/-. Reason for taking such a drastic action is stated to be mis-statement or wrong disclosure with regard to the authorized driver entitled to drive the vehicle concerned in terms of the permit issued to the petitioners. It seems that same name of the driver and conductor figures on the record of all the permits of the buses and this was considered in the opinion of the licensing authority to be breach of law. Those factual aspects are not the issue here. The issue is whether such an action can be taken against the petitioners without giving them an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the statute i.e. section 86 of the Act itself. Contention of the petitioners is categorical in the writ applications that no notice came to be issued to show cause to them. They on other information appeared before the authorities on the so called date of hearing but it was an enmass hearing in which enmass order was passed. Mere presence of the petitioners, therefore, does not authorize the respondents to dispense with the requirement of law because after all permits give a right to every individual to run the buses and engage in trade or business. - 3 - From perusal of the order passed in the revision as well as from the statements made in the counter affidavit of the State the allegation or the averment of the petitioners that no notice individually was given to them nor were they heard on this issue seems to be reflected. The right conferred upon a citizen under the statute cannot be taken away in the garb of the fact that all the persons belong to the same family and the factual matrix seems to be the same. There is a breach of the provisions of section 86 of the Act. Let the concerned authority issue notice to the petitioners afresh giving them opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass appropriate order in this regard. In light of what has been stated above, the impugned orders stand quashed and the matters are remitted back to the respondents authorities for fresh decision in accordance with law. Both these writ applications are allowed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)