AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N S Sanjay Gowda, J
The petitioner was recipient of a temporary permit dated 30.04.2024, by which he was permitted to ply his vehicle between the period 30.04.2024 to 31.07.2024.
On 28.05.2024 i.e., during the subsistence of temporary permit, an order has been passed canceling the temporary permit dated 30.04.2024 and the reason putforth in the order is that counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo in another revision petition stating that he had surrendered the permit for cancellation and therefore the revision petition had become infructuous. Admittedly, the revision in which the memo was filed, did not relate to the temporary permit that was granted on 30.04.2024 and related to another temporary permit.
It is also the complaint of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner was not even notified or heard in matter before temporary permit dated 30.04.2024 was cancelled. This fact that the petitioner was not heard is not in dispute. If a temporary permit has been granted to a recipient, before canceling the same, the principles of natural justice require that the recipient be heard in the matter. Merely because the petitioner filed a memo in some other revision in which some other temporary permit was impugned, that cannot be the basis to cancel a temporary permit and that too without hearing the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed. The respondent is directed to notify the petitioner before passing any order regarding cancellation of the temporary permit dated 30.04.2024..
Since the temporary permit which was granted on 30.04.2024 is valid only till 30.07.2024, the respondent shall take appropriate steps regarding cancellation of permit if it so desires within a period of two weeks from today.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.