Mandatory Opportunity of Hearing Required Before Rejecting Application for Permanent Stage Carriage Permit

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

On 19.12.2025, the Respondent Authority rejected the application via a virtual hearing

The Petitioner challenged this order through a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the rejection was passed without adhering to mandatory procedural safeguards and without providing a fair opportunity for hearing or amendment as required by law

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

2. Whether the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 is sustainable in the absence of a proper opportunity for the applicant to amend the timetable or respond to the intention of rejection

The Court primarily applied Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates that if an authority is inclined to refuse an application, it must communicate the reasons to the applicant and provide an opportunity to be heard

It further relied on Section 71(2) and Section 72 of the Act, which necessitate that the authority apply its mind and grant the applicant an opportunity to amend the proposed timetable or address objections before a final rejection is issued

The Court observed that while the Petitioner participated in a virtual hearing, the Respondent Authority failed to strictly adhere to the statutory procedure

Specifically, the Authority did not communicate its intention to reject the application beforehand, which is a requirement under the second proviso to Section 80(2)

The Court reasoned that the Authority must first apply its mind to the application under Section 72 and, if disposal is unfavorable, offer the applicant a chance to amend the time table under Section 71(2) to resolve potential conflicts or objections

Since the impugned order did not reflect compliance with these mandatory procedural "pre-conditions," the Court found the decision-making process legally flawed

It set aside the order dated 19.12.2025 and remitted the matter back to the Regional Transport Authority

The Authority was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and relevant objectors, strictly adhering to the provisos of Section 80(2) and Section 71(2), and to pass a fresh order within 60 days

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly