1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P(MD)No.4696 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 A.Perialagu : Petitioner Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Madurai North, Madurai. : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Se.Mu.Aa.No.447/A4/2011 dated 06.04.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return the petitioner's original driving license and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Xavier For Respondent : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Additional Govt. Pleader O R D E R ********** Challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 06.04.2011 suspending the driving license of the petitioner for a period of six months, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The short background of the matter, as set out in the affidavit is stated here under: The petitioner is employed as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited at its Melur Branch. On 22.12.2010, when he was driving the bus, 65 years old man suddenly attempted to cross the road. The petitioner though applied for the brake, could not stop the vehicle and hit the said person. He sustained injuries and immediately he was taken to the hospital. Later he was died. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. A First Information Report was registered against him in Crime No.1182 of 2010 before Melur Police Station. On 22.12.2010,he was directed to be present in Melur Police Station with his original driving license. On the said date, the driving license of the petitioner was seized by the Inspector of Police and handed over to the respondent. 4. Thereafter the petitioner has received a show cause notice in the printed format calling upon him to explain while his license should not be suspended. The petitioner has offered an explanation for the same. However, the impugned order was passed suspending the license of the petitioner for a period of six months. The petitioner is, therefore, approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that an explanation has been offered by the petitioner denying the allegations made in the show cause notice and without considering the same, the impugned order came to be passed as though the petitioner has accepted the allegations made in the show cause notice. That apart, he has contended that the impugned order is in a printed format and the same has been filled up and now it is termed as impugned order. 6. On notice, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that since the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the impugned order came to be passed. 7. While considering the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner has denied the charges made against him to the show cause notice issued to him, the respondent is bound to consider the said explanation and pass suitable orders. In the case on hand, even though the petitioner has not accepted the guilt, the impugned order says that the petitioner has accepted the guilt. Even the learned Additional Government Pleader has to fairly admit that the petitioner has not accepted the charges made against the petitioner in the show cause notice. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned order had been passed without application of mind. 8. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 06.04.2011 of the respondent and accordingly this writ petition is allowed. It is needless to say that the respondent is at liberty to proceed with the matter after considering the explanation made by the petitioner and after conducting an enquiry. 9. In view of the order passed earlier, the driving license of the petitioner shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith. The learned Additional Government Pleader is directed to inform the order of this Court to the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 forthwith and the respondent is directed to hand over the driving license to the petitioner without waiting for an order from this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Madurai North, Madurai. +One Cc to Mr.G.M.Xavier, Advocate, SR.No.16077 +One cc to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.No.16316 smn rl/4c – 11.5.2011 ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.4696 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 29.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/