Case: Arbind Kumar Singh Vs. Nand Kishore Prasad &amp; Ors

1. On January 15, 1965, the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Patna, ordered that a permit to ply a stage carriage on Dehri Bhabua route be granted to Arbind Kumar Singh - hereinafter called the appellant-"on production of all valid documents of 1964 model bus along with clearance certificate of transport tax within one month from the date, of order, failing which the sanction of permit in his favour would stand automatically revoked, and permit will then be given to the next deserving candidate Nand Kishore Prasad * * * *" On application submitted by Nand Kishore Prasad - who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent - that the appellant had failed to carry out the condition relating to the grant of permit, the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority by order dated February 20, 1965, cancelled the permit and directed that a permit be given to the respondent. The order of the Chairman was reversed in appeal by the Appellate Board. In the view of the Board "the clearance certificate" filed by the appellant showed that all the taxes due by him were paid2. The respondent then moved the State Government of Bihar under S. 64-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the Bihar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 17 of 1950. The Minister of Transport who heard the petition reversed the order of the Appellate Board, holding that the appellant had failed to carry out the conditions subject to which the Regional Transport Authority had ordered that the permit be given to him. A petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution moved by the appellant in the High Court of Patna against the order of the Minister of Transport was dismissed. The appellant has appealed to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
8. Finally, it was urged that the Minister of Transport acted illegally in taking into account evidence which was not on the record of the Regional Transport, Authority, and alternatively, that the Minister violated the fundamental rules of natural justice in basing his judgment upon a document received from the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, intimating that the transport tax was due by the appellant without bringing it to the notice of the appellant and calling for an explanation. Section 64-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by Bihar Act 17 of 1950 authorises the State Government to call for, in the course of any proceedings taken under the Chapter, from any authority or officer subordinate to it, the records of such proceedings, and after examining such records pass such order as it thinks fit. The expression "pass such order as it thinks fit" is not restricted to the passing of orders which are final in character. If for the purposes of doing complete justice between the parties, the authority who hears the revision petition is satisfied that it is necessary to call for additional evidence, he may call for such evidence. There is no bar in the Act or the rules against an appellate or the revising authority taking into consideration additional evidence brought on the record, if the authority requires additional evidence to be brought on the record or allows it to be brought on the record to do complete justice between the parties. The evidence must undoubtedly be disclosed to the parties and they must be given an opportunity to meet an inference that may arise from such additional evidence.We are unable to hold that the Minister of Transport in taking into consideration the report received from the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Intelligence Branch, that an amount of Rs. 1,675 was outstanding on February 16, 1965, against the appellant in respect of the two buses plied in the year 1950-51 acted in violation of the rules of natural justice. The circumstances in which this document was brought on the file of the Minister are not clear on the record. But as stated by the Minister, the document was disclosed to counsel for the appellant and counsel was asked to give a reply thereto. The Minister also recorded in his judgment that counsel for the appellant explained that since there was no demand for payment of the dues, it was not correct to say that the amount of Rs. 1,675 was due against the appellant on February 16, 1965. The Minister of Transport rejected that argument. Before us it was contended that the document was never shown to the appellants counsel, and he was never asked to render his explanation in that behalf. If this were true, the appellant would, we have no doubt, have approached the Minister who was exercising quasi-judicial functions, and would have asked him to review his order. This admittedly has not been done. Again, if the grievance now raised were true, the averments made in Paragraph 19 of the petition before the High Court would not have taken the form which they have taken. In paragraph 19 it is stated that"the so-called report of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Intelligence Branch, Patna under Memo No. 8527 dated 24th July, 1965 was never shown to the petitioner and the petitioner had no opportunity to meet the said report".Whereas the Minister of Transport had recorded that the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, was shown to counsel for the appellant and the counsel had given certain information, the petition before the High Court merely stated that the appellant was not shown the report of the Deputy Commissioner9. The High Court on a consideration of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the claim made by the appellant that the document was not disclosed at the hearing before the Minister of Transport, and the Minister acted upon that document without informing the appellant, cannot be accepted, and we do not see any reason to disagree with the view expressed by the High Court.