IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 3730 of 2008 Between: P. Venkateshwarlu S/o. P. Lakshminarasaiah R/o. 1-137, Angadiveddhi, Y.M. Palle Post, Kadapa. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chittoor District. 2 Licensing Authority, Chittoor. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings No.R.No.12/76/B3/2007, dated 10.01.08 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice apart from being ultravires of his powers and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other and further order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the order passed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chittoor District in R.No.12/76/B3/2007 dated 10.01.2008 in disqualifying him from holding driving licence in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner holds a valid driving licence No.HS401CDP1986OD issued by the Licensing Authority, Kadapa under the transport category valid up to 15.04.2010. He further submits that in the accident caused by the petitioner with vehicle bearing No. AP 28 Z 2527 a person died and therefore, a case had been registered in FIR.No.2 of 2002 under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code of K.V. Palli Police Station on 07.01.2008. Based on the same, the first respondent presumed that the petitioner has committed a cognizable offence and passed the impugned order. 3. As the petitioner has committed a cognizable offence, the course open to the respondents to take such action to suspend the valid driving licence is under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act. Section 19(1)(c) of the Act reads as follows: “19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence – 1. If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he - (a) ……… (b) ……… (c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence; or (d) ……… (e) ……… (f) ……… (g) ……… (h) ……… it may for reasons to be recorded in writing make an order – (i) disqualifying that persons for a specified person for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence; or (ii) revoke any such licence.” 4. The aforesaid Section goes to show that the licensing authority is competent to disqualify a person for holding a driving licence for a specified period or even to revoke the licence after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard even in case where a cognizable offence has been committed. Admittedly, in the instant case, no show cause notice has been issued and no reasonable opportunity has been given to the petitioner but the Deputy Transport Commissioner has straightaway passed the impugned order. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and as the impugned order has been passed against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the statutory provisions, the same is set aside keeping it open to the first respondent to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J February 29, 2008 DSK