Statutory hearing and written reasons are mandatory prerequisites before refusing a stage carriage permit application.

The petitioner filed an application on May 23, 2025, for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit

The Respondent (Regional Transport Authority) rejected the application on November 27, 2025, citing "overlapping timing of vehicles" as the ground for refusal

The petitioner challenged this rejection via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the authority failed to provide a mandatory hearing as required by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

While the State contended that a virtual hearing was provided, the petitioner maintained that the procedural safeguards regarding the amendment of timetables were ignored

Whether the Regional Transport Authority failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under the second proviso to Section 80(2) and Section 71(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before rejecting the permit application

The court applied Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which stipulates that an authority shall not ordinarily refuse a permit application and, in the event of refusal, must provide written reasons and an opportunity of being heard

The court further relied on Section 71(2) of the Act, which mandates that if an authority is inclined to reject an application due to timing issues, it must grant the applicant an opportunity to amend the proposed timetable

The court reasoned that the second proviso to Section 80(2) requires authorities to communicate an intention to reject an application to the applicant before passing a final order

This procedural step is intended to allow the applicant an opportunity to be heard in consonance with Section 71(2), specifically to permit the amendment of the timetable to resolve objections

In this case, the court observed that although a virtual hearing took place, the RTA failed to adhere to these mandatory statutory requirements

The impugned order did not reflect that the petitioner was given any opportunity to rectify the "overlapping timing" issue through an amendment, rendering the decision-making process flawed and the resulting order unsustainable

The court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Regional Transport Authority

The Respondent was directed to provide the petitioner a fresh opportunity of hearing, including the opportunity to amend the timetable under Section 71(2), and to pass a fresh order within 60 days of receiving the court's direction