1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.3021 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 & 2 of 2011 R.Venkatajalapathy ... Petitioner Vs The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Thanjavur. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the respondent relating to the order of the respondent dated 09.03.2011 passed in Na.Ka.No.7822/E5/2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return his driving licence to him. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.P.Thilak kumar Addl.Govt.Pleader ORDER The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the respondent relating to the order of the respondent dated 09.03.2011 passed in Na.Ka.No.7822/E5/2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return his driving licence to him. In and by which the said impugned order, the licence of the petitioner was suspended for a period of six months from 18.02.2011 to 17.08.2011. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd. When he was driving the bus, there was an accident. Hence, F.I.R. was registered against him under various law. Thereupon, the respondent has caused a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him why his licence should not be cancelled. To which, the petitioner gave his explanation. However, the respondent without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner has passed the present the impugned order. Hence, the present Writ Petition for the relief stated earlier. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, an explanation was offered by him. However, the same has not been considered by the respondent, while passing the impugned order. 4. Mr.P.Thilak kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent is unable to point out from the impugned order that the explanation offered by the petitioner was duly considered before passing the impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to quash the impugned order only on the ground that the said impugned order came to be passed without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. Needless to say, it is open to the respondent to pass orders afresh after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner and after conducting due enquiry. The respondent is directed to return the driving licence of the petitioner forthwith. In the result, the Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Thanjavur. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.14618 +1CC TO M/S.S.ARUNACHALAM, ADVOCATE SR.14345 Ssm SR : 02.05.2011 : 2p/4c W.P.(MD)No.3021 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/