1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.7532 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 P.Durai ... Petitioner Vs. The Licensing Authority, (The Regional Transport Officer), The Regional Transport Office, Srirangam, Trichy. ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the respondent, dated 30.06.2011 passed in Se.Mu. Order No.29688/A3/2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return his driving license to him. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The impugned order suspending the driving licence of the petitioner from 31.05.2011 to 30.11.2011 by invoking Sections 19(1) (c) read with 21 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, is challenged in this Writ Petition. 2. Reading of the impugned order shows that on 31.05.2011, while driving a Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN 45 N 2630 in a rash and negligent manner, the petitioner has caused the death of a person. The impugned order further shows that on receipt of the show cause notice the petitioner has submitted an explanation, dated 14.06.2011, which was not acceptable and by observing that the petitioner driving the vehicle cautiously, he could avoid the accident and loss of life, the impugned order has been passed. 3. That apart, the Licensing Authority, the Regional Transport Officer, Srirangam, Trichy, has suspended the license giving liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal as per the statute. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Though, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order, contending inter alia that a detailed enquiry has not been conducted and that no evidence was produced, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the Writ Petition. When there is a statutory remedy provided under Section 19(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, which states that any person aggrieved by an order made by a Licensing Authority under Sub-Section (1) may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, appeal to the prescribed authority, and such appellate authority shall give notice to the licensing authority and hear either party if so required by that party and may pass such order as it thinks fit and an order passed by any such appellate authority shall be final, the petitioner ought to have availed the statutory remedy. 4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed directing the petitioner to avail alternative remedy before the prescribed authority. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. 5. After the dismissal of this Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the Registry to return the impugned order so as to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority. 6. In view of his submission, the Registry is directed to return the original impugned order after taking an attested copy of the impugned order. If any appeal is filed to the prescribed authority under the Act, the time consumed in this litigation be condoned. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Licensing Authority (The Regional Transport Officer) The Regional Transport Office Srirangam, Trichy. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.22201) +1 CC to Mr.S.Arunachalam, Advocate (SR.No.21967) W.P.(MD).No.7532 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 07.07.2011 vsg NSV/4.8.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/