An adverse order passed without effective hearing violates natural justice and must be set aside.

The petitioner, a stage-carriage bus operator, was granted permanent permit No. 26/RTA/J/2021 by the Regional Transport Authority on 29 September 2021 for the route Narayanpur–Raipur via Antagarh, Keverti, Bhanupratappur, Charama, Dhamtari and Abhanpur.

Respondent No. 3, whose objection to the permit had been rejected by the RTA, filed Revision Petition No. R-13/2021 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Although the petitioner initially entered appearance through counsel, the matter was fixed for 5 March 2022, which was declared a holiday. The subsequent date, 7 March 2022, and later dates were allegedly not communicated to the petitioner or his counsel.

The petitioner was consequently proceeded against ex parte, and the STAT ultimately set aside the permit by order dated 13 June 2023 on grounds including alleged deficiencies in the permit application, non-compliance with statutory requirements and cross-timing.

Whether the STAT violated the principles of natural justice by proceeding ex parte against the petitioner and deciding the revision without ensuring effective communication of the subsequent hearing dates and a meaningful opportunity of hearing?

Whether the High Court should examine the merits of the STAT’s findings concerning the validity of the permit, alleged application deficiencies and cross-timing, or remit the matter for fresh adjudication?

The Court considered Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing the grant of stage-carriage permits, and Section 90, providing for revision before the STAT.

Rule 70-B of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, requires the permit-granting authority to consider public convenience, overlapping or clashing timings, route frequency, objections of existing operators and the prescribed procedure for determining time cycles, including consideration of the application and representations in the presence of the parties.

The Court applied the audi alteram partem principle, under which a person likely to suffer adverse civil consequences must receive reasonable notice and a real, effective opportunity to meet the case against him.

Relying on State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, (1967) SCC OnLine SC 15, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Court held that administrative and quasi-judicial decisions involving civil consequences must conform to natural justice.

It also relied on Veena Gupta v. Central Pollution Control Board, (2024) 11 SCC 701, for the principle that an order passed without adequate opportunity of hearing should ordinarily be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

The Court found that the petitioner had initially appeared and participated through counsel, and therefore had not abandoned the proceedings from their inception.

Since the scheduled hearing date of 5 March 2022 became a holiday, the subsequent date was required to be effectively communicated, particularly because the petitioner was already represented and the Tribunal’s functioning and Presiding Officer had changed during the relevant period.

The petitioner was thereafter declared ex parte and the revision was decided on merits, resulting in the cancellation of his existing permit and consequent civil consequences.

An initial service of notice or an earlier appearance did not satisfy the requirement of a meaningful hearing at the stage when an adverse order was to be passed.

The Court further noted that respondent No. 3 had also remained absent on three consecutive dates, making it inappropriate to treat the petitioner’s absence in isolation as deliberate abandonment.

Because the STAT’s findings on Rule 72(3), incomplete application columns, vehicle particulars and cross-timing had been recorded without hearing the petitioner, the High Court declined to assess their merits and considered remand to be the proper remedy.

The order was accordingly quashed and Revision Petition No. R-13/2021 was restored to the STAT for fresh adjudication.

The parties were directed to appear before the STAT on 16 September 2026, with no separate notice required for that appearance.

The STAT was directed to allow the parties to present their pleadings, documents and submissions, grant the petitioner three further effective opportunities if necessary, and decide the revision by a reasoned and speaking order, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations, preferably within four weeks from 16 September 2026.

The Court expressly left all issues concerning the substantive validity of the permit, statutory compliance and alleged cross-timing open for determination by the STAT.

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.