IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.7.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.14165 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 P.Tamilgnanam ... petitioner Vs. 1. The Regional Transport Authority Mannarkudi, Mannarkudi Taluk Thiruvarur District 2. The Regional Transport Authority Thiruchenkodu Thiruchenkodu Taluk Namakkal District ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in and by his proceedings No.30817/B1/2011 dated 8.6.2011, and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.V.Bharathidasan For respondents : Mr.N.Sakthivel Government Advocate O R D E R This writ petition has been filed to call for and quash the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 8.6.2011. The petitioner has stated that a driving licence, bearing licence No.TN4919750000408, was granted by the first respondent, on 31.5.1975. The said licence was valid upto 30.5.2011, for driving light motor vehicles. Further, the petitioner had been granted a licence for driving heavy transport vehicles, on 26.7.1979. He was also authorised to drive a transport vehicle, vide badge No.9100, dated 18.4.1979. 2. It has been further stated that when the petitioner was driving the vehicle bearing No.TN 01 U 0852, on 9.4.2011, an accident had taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ place, due to the carelessness of a cyclist, leading to his death. A complaint had been registered against the petitioner before the second respondent. The second respondent had issued a show cause notice, dated 30.5.2011, on the ground that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner. The petitioner had been asked to explain as to why his driving licence should not be suspended or cancelled. Seven days time had been given to the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice, dated 30.5.2011. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the second respondent. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent had passed an order, mechanically, without applying his mind and without adducing any reason, suspending the licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, from 11.4.2011 to 10.10.2011. No enquiry had been held by the second respondent. As such, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 8.6.2011, is arbitrary, illegal and void. Further, the impugned order had been passed by the second respondent, without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are incorrect. The petitioner had caused a fatal accident, on 9.4.2011, due to his negligent driving of the vehicle in question, leading to the death of a cyclist. Therefore, the second respondent had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 30.5.2011, based on the complaint registered before him. Since, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and as the petitioner had accepted the fact that the accident had been caused, while he was driving the vehicle, his driving licence had been suspended for a period of six months, as per Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The order passed by the second respondent, on 8.6.2011, suspending the licence of the petitioner, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 8.6.2011, following the principles of natural justice. The second respondent had issued the show cause notice, dated 30.5.2011, asking the petitioner to submit his explanation. Since, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the second respondent had passed the order, dated 8.6.2011, suspending the licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, as per law. 5. It had been further stated that the petitioner can renew his licence, as per the procedures established by law, only after the period of suspension comes to an end. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 8.6.2011, suspending the licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, is contrary to the provisions of law. Further, the impugned order had been passed by the second respondent by following principles of natural justice. The petitioner had been given a show cause notice, dated 30.5.2011. Since, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 8.6.2011, suspending the licence of the petitioner, for having caused a fatal accident due to his negligence. Further, it is noted that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for the suspension of a licence, by the authority concerned. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. Connected M.P.Nos.1,2 and 3 of 2011 are closed. No costs. Sd/ Deputy Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar lan To 1. The Regional Transport Authority Mannarkudi, Mannarkudi Taluk Thiruvarur District 2. The Regional Transport Authority Thiruchenkodu Thiruchenkodu Taluk, Namakkal District +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 40624 DM(CO) km/21.7. Writ Petition No.14165 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/