Mandatory hearing and opportunity for amendment are essential prerequisites under Sections 71 and 80 for rejecting carriage permit applications.

The petitioner applied for a Permanent Stage Carriage Permit for the route Jarahagaon to Korba under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Respondent (Regional Transport Authority) rejected the application via an order dated 19.12.2025.

The petitioner challenged this rejection before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, contending that the Authority failed to follow the mandatory procedural requirements, specifically failing to provide a fair opportunity of hearing or the option to amend the proposed timetable as required by law.

Although the petitioner participated in a virtual hearing, she alleged the statutory safeguards were ignored.

Whether the Regional Transport Authority complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 71 and Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before rejecting the permit application.

Whether the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 is legally sustainable in light of the failure to afford the applicant an opportunity to amend the application.

The Court applied Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which outlines the procedure for considering stage carriage permit applications, specifically the proviso to sub-section (2) regarding the opportunity to amend timetables.

It further relied on Section 80(2) of the Act, which mandates that if an authority is inclined to refuse an application, it must provide the applicant with an opportunity of being heard and record the reasons for such refusal in writing.

The Court examined the second proviso to Section 80(2), noting that an authority must first apply its mind to the application and, if it intends to reject it, must communicate this intention to the applicant to allow for a hearing.

In conjunction with Section 71(2), the authority is required to grant the applicant an opportunity to amend the proposed timetable to resolve potential conflicts or objections.

Upon perusing the record, the Court found that while the petitioner attended a virtual hearing, the Authority did not strictly adhere to these specific statutory safeguards.

The impugned order did not reflect compliance with the requirement to allow time-table amendments or provide the specific post-refusal hearing contemplated by the proviso to Section 80(2).

Consequently, the procedural lapse rendered the decision-making process flawed.

The Court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Regional Transport Authority with directions to provide the petitioner a fresh opportunity of hearing in terms of the provisos to Section 80(2) and Section 71(2).

The Authority was directed to pass a fresh order, after hearing all concerned parties including original objectors, within 60 days of receiving the court’s order.

The writ petition was allowed.