1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:08.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.1617 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 V.Balasubramanian : Petitioner Vs. The Regional Transport Officer and Licensing Authority, Pudukkottai. : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in R.No.40991/A4/2010, dated 06.12.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially, direct the respondent to return bank the original driving licence of the petitioner within a stipulated period. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Janath Ahmed For Respondent : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The present Writ Petition was filed challenging the impugned order of the respondent dated 06.12.2010 and consequently, directing the respondent to return back the original driving licence of the petitioner, within a time stipulated by this Court. 2. The short matrix of the matter is set out hereunder: (i) The petitioner is employed as a driver in Trichy Depot of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited at its Pudukkottai region. On 14.09.2010, when he was driving the vehicle, a woman fell from the bus and sustained injuries. She died on the next day. A case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.562 of 2010 under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukkottai. (ii) While so, the respondent has seized the driving licence. A show cause notice was issued to him calling upon him to explain why his licence shall not be suspended. The petitioner offered his explanation. However, without considering the explanation, the respondent has suspended the licence for a period of six months. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 4. The first and foremost contention that was made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order suspending the licence of the petitioner for a period of six months was made without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. Hence, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that the explanation of the petitioner has been considered and thereafter only, the impugned order came to be passed. 6. While considering the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, I am of the considered view that the explanation that has been offered by the petitioner was not at all considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order. In the impugned order, it is merely stated that the explanation that has been offered by the petitioner was not accepted. It is not stated what was the explanation that has been offered by the petitioner and why the same was not accepted. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the explanation that has been offered by the petitioner was not at all considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order. 7. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 06.12.2010. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.12.2010 stands set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. It is open to the respondent to pass orders afresh, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There is no order as to costs. SML Sd/- Assistant Registrar[P&A] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Regional Transport Officer and Licensing Authority, Pudukkottai. +1 cc to Mr.B.Kanath Ahmed, Advocate SR.No.11700. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.5558. Order made in W.P.(MD).No.1617 of 2011 Dated:08.03.2011 2P/4C RPB 09.03.2011[I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/