IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 259 (MS) of 2011 Himmat Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. B.D. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Bisht, the learned brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner held a driving license and while driving a bus collided with another truck coming from the opposite side resulting in the injury to 19 passengers out of which 7 were critically injured. A Magisterial inquiry was ordered and the Sub Divisional Magistrate submitted a report in which he opined that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver. Based on the said report and the other factors taken into consideration the licensing authority issued a notice to the driver to show cause as to why his license should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply that the accident did not occur on account of any rash or negligent driving on his part but the accident occurred on account of unforeseen reasons while saving a dog who had crossed the road and came in the path of the vehicle. The explanation was found unsatisfactory and, the licensing authority, by the impugned order, suspended the license of the petitioner for a period of six months. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the inquiry and technical report, no case of negligence can be attributed to the petitioner and that on account of unforeseen circumstances the accident had taken place. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, a prima facie, case of negligence was found in the inquiry report, which has led to the suspension of the license of the petitioner. 2 The said inquiry is based on the appreciation of fact and the evidence collected by the Magistrate concerned. This Court in a writ jurisdiction is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 23.05.2011 VKG