1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.6306 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 R.Vallavarasan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Srirangam, Trichy. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the respondent relating to the order of the respondent dated 06.06.2011 passed in Se.Mu.Order No.23915/A3/2011 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return his driving license to him and award cost. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, A.G.P. ORDER ****** Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2.By consent, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3.Challenging the order of the respondent dated 06.06.2011, suspending the license of the petitioner for a period of 6 months i.e. from 23.04.2011 to 22.10.2011, the present writ petition is laid. 4.The short background of the matter is set out hereunder: The petitioner is working as a Driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited. On 19.03.2011, when he was working in the bus, an accident took place. An F.I.R. was registered against him for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. His driving license was seized by the respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court, by filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.5678 of 2011, challenging the order of the 2nd respondent in seizing the license. This Court, by an order dated 13.06.2011, directed the respondent to handover the license to the petitioner with a further direction to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent to proceed against the petitioner under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if he chooses to do so. 5.Later, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent, suspending the license of the petitioner for a period of six months. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is laid. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that when the petitioner has offered his explanation for the notice sent by the respondent, without considering the said explanation offered by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed. Hence, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory and hence, the present impugned order came to be passed by the respondent, suspending the license for a period of six months. 8.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 9.The impugned order referred about the explanation offered by the petitioner. However, in one part of the impugned order, the respondent stated that no explanation has been offered by the petitioner “,Jehs; tiu tpsf;ff; fojk; bgwg;gltpy;iy ”. In the same part of the order, it is stated that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory. Thus, it seems the respondent has not at all applied his mind before passing the impugned order. When an explanation has been offered by the petitioner, which has been referred in the reference, it is expected that the said explanation has to be considered by the respondent, while passing the impugned order. 10.In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the respondent dated 06.06.2011 and remit the matter to the respondent. 11.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.06.2011 passed by the respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent. The respondent is at liberty to pass orders afresh after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner and if necessary after holding enquiry. It is needless to say that the license that has been seized by the respondent has to be returned to the petitioner forthwith. The learned Additional Government Pleader is directed to intimate about the order forthwith to the respondent so that he can handover the license to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. arul Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Trichy. +1 cc to Mr.S.Arunachalam, Advocate SR.no.18616. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.18828. Order made in W.P.(MD) No.6306 of 2011 Dated:16.06.2011 3P/4C RPB 27.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/