Hearing and opportunity to amend timetable are mandatory before rejecting permit timing change applications.

The petitioner, owner of a bus (Registration No. CG 14-MN-1092), applied to the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) for a change of timing for his permit on the route from Pathalgaon to Jashpur via Tamta and Kansabel

The application was filed under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act")

On February 3, 2026, the respondent authority rejected the petitioner's application

The petitioner challenged this order via a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the RTA rejected the application without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements regarding the opportunity of hearing and the communication of intent to reject as stipulated under Sections 71 and 80 of the Act

1. Whether the Regional Transport Authority failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 80(2) and Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by rejecting the application without communicating an intent to reject or providing a fair opportunity for amendment

2. Whether the participation of the petitioner in a virtual hearing sufficed as compliance with the statutory provisos of the Act

Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates that if an authority is inclined to reject an application, the intention to reject must be communicated to the applicant and an opportunity of hearing must be provided

second proviso of Section 80(2) read with Section 71(2) of the Act, which establishes that authorities must grant an applicant the opportunity to amend their time table if the initial proposal is not acceptable

Section 72 of the Act was also cited regarding the authority's duty to apply its mind when deciding applications for permits

The Court noted that the second proviso to Section 80(2) requires a specific sequence: the authority must first apply its mind under Section 72, and if it intends to reject the application, it must communicate that intention to the applicant to allow for an opportunity of hearing

This must be done in consonance with Section 71(2), which allows the applicant to amend the proposed time table

Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that while the petitioner was permitted to participate in a virtual hearing, the RTA failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure of communicating the "intention of rejection" and providing the specific opportunity to amend the schedule as required by the provisos

The Court determined that the mere existence of a hearing does not bypass the necessity of adhering to these specific statutory safeguards

The Court set aside the order dated 03.02.2026 and remitted the matter back to the Regional Transport Authority

The RTA was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and relevant objectors in strict compliance with the provisos of Section 80(2) and Section 71(2)

A final decision must be passed within 60 days from the receipt of the Court’s order

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of