1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 08.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P(MD)No.2684 of 2011 And M.P.(MD)Nos.1&2 of 2011 M.Balu .. Petitioner Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Pudukottai. .. Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the respondent relating to the order of the respondent 08.02.2011 passed in Na.KA.No.49359-A4-2010, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return his driving license to him and award cost. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Adl.Govt.Pleader ORDER The present writ petition is laid challenging the order of the respondent dated 08.02.2011 and consequently direct the respondent to return his driving license. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited from 2007. On 21.11.2010, when he was driving the bus, an accident took place. An FIR was registered and he was arrayed as an accused in Crime No.65/2010 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. His license was seized by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and several requests that was made to him to return the license was not acceded by him. A show-cause notice was issued to him dated 09.12.2010 asking him why the driving license should not be suspended under Section 19(1)(C) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The petitioner offered his explanation by saying that he was not responsible for the accident Nevertheless, the impugned order came to be passed suspending his license for a period of six months from 23.11.2010 to 02.06.2011. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that when the petitioner has offered an explanation on 08.02.2010 for the show- cause notice dated 24.12.2010, without considering the same, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent suspending his license for a period of six months and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent though sought to support the order of the respondent dated 08.02.2010, he is unable to point out that in the impugned order the explanation offered by the petitioner was considered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.While considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am of the considered view that though there is a reference about the explanation in the impugned order, absolutely, the explanation that has been offered by the petitioner was not at all considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order. The impugned order merely state that the explanation offered by the petitioner is rejected. Why the explanation has been rejected was not stated in the impugned order. 6.In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the respondent dated 08.02.2010 and the writ petition stands allowed. It is open to the respondent to consider the matter afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner and after considering the reply that has been offered by the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Pudukottai. ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.2684 of 2011 08.03.2011 MPK PA/28.03.2011/2P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/