THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16987 OF 2010 Dated: 06.08.2010 Between: U.Nagesh … Petitioner And 1. Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 2 others…. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16987 OF 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 3rd respondent – Regional Transport Officer, Khammam, dated 17.8.2009 cancelling the driving licence of the petitioner and disqualifying him for obtaining a fresh driving licence for a period of one year is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was granted a licence to drive LMV HGV HPV. On 23.10.2008 the petitioner while driving a Bus belonging to Ganesh Cab caused an accident resulting in injuries to two persons. Thereupon FIR No.269/2008, dated 23.10.2008, was registered on the file of Rayadurgam P.S. for the offence punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. which ended in conviction by the Court of VIII-Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent under the impugned proceedings dated 17.8.2009 cancelled the driving licence of the petitioner on the ground of his conviction. The said order dated 17.8.2009 is assailed in this writ petition contending that the action of the 3rd respondent in cancelling the driving licence without considering the petitioner’s explanation submitted to the show-cause notice and without assigning any reasons is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that the impugned order was passed mechanically without application of mind to the provisions of Sections 19 and 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that as the petitioner had already paid the fine imposed by the competent Court and except the above said conviction as there was no other allegation against the petitioner, it cannot be held that the petitioner suffered any disqualification warranting cancellation of the driving licence. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that a show-cause notice dated 21.7.2009 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why his driving licence should not be cancelled under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and after considering his explanation the impugned order of cancellation was rightly passed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Admittedly the petitioner was convicted in Crime No.269/2008 of Rayadurgam P.S. and was imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- by the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar. It is also not in dispute that the impugned order of cancellation was preceded by a show- cause notice dated 21.7.2009 affording an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation. Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the licensing authority to cancel the driving licence after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard. The grounds upon which such cancellation can be ordered are enumerated under Section 19(1) of the Act and as per Clause (d) of Section 19 (1), the driving licence can be cancelled where the holder of the licence has by his previous conduct as driver of a motor vehicle shown that his driving is likely to be attended with danger to the public. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner was that while overtaking a motor cycle, the petitioner’s bus hit the motorcycle on rear side which resulted in dragging the injured to a distance of 100 meters. It is apparent from the nature of the accident that the petitioner was driving the vehicle dangerously. The fact that the petitioner was convicted of the offence itself shows that the allegation of rash driving by the petitioner was established. In the circumstances, undoubtedly Section 19 (1) (d) is attracted and the cancellation of driving licence of the petitioner cannot be held to be unwarranted. As noticed above, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice and the impugned order came to be passed after considering his explanation. In the light of the admitted facts noticed above, the impugned order cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. The contention that the impugned order was contrary to Section 22 of the Act is also untenable as Section 22 which provides for the suspension or cancellation of the driving licence by the Court by which the person was convicted is not attracted to the case on hand. Hence the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 06.08.2010 gbs