IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:20-1-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.25829 of 2008 M.P.Murugesan ... Petitioner Versus 1.Special Commissioner & Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The Licensing Authority Chennai West/Regional Transport Authority, Chennai-78. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in proceedings No.38070/E.2/08 dated 24.06.2008 and that of the first respondent in R.C.No.40074/H.1/08 dated 14.09.2008 and quash the said proceedings of the second and first respondent dated 24.06.2008 and 14.09.2008 respectively and consequently direct the respondents to renew the driving school license of the petitioner viz. Annai Theresa Driving School. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Jenasenan For Respondents :Mr.V.R.Thangavelu Addl.Government Pleader. ORDER The petitioner has sought for a Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the order of Licensing Authority, Chennai Regional Transport Authority, Chennai-78 dated 24.06.2008 and the order of Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner, Chennai, the appellate authority dated 14.9.2008. Consequently he has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to renew the driving school licence of Annai Theresa, Driving School. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Driving school was established in December, 1997 and licence was granted under Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Periodical renewal of licence was also made by the Licensing Authority. When the petitioner filed an application dated 29.12.2007 for renewal of licence for a further period of five years, the same was rejected by the second respondent, citing various reasons. Aggrieved by the order of rejection for renewal, dated 24.6.2008 passed by the licensing authority, Chennai-78, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was also dismissed on 14.09.2008. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Though the petitioner has raised several grounds assailing the correctness of the orders passed by the respondents dated 24.06.2008 and 14.09.2008 respectively Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to Rule 24(5) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 submitted that the respondents ought to have given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before rejecting the renewal application and on this score alone, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. To ascertain as to whether the licensing authority has complied with the above said statutory requirement, records were directed to be produced. 5. Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned Additional Government Pleader on the basis of the notice dated 8.4.2008 issued by the Licensing Authority to the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been called upon to offer his explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, as to why the renewal application should not be rejected and since there was no response from him, it should be construed that he had no explanation to offer and in such circumstances, the Licensing Authority was constrained to pass appropriate orders rejecting the request for renewal. He further submitted that before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has not raised the ground of personal hearing and therefore, it is not open to him to raise such a ground for the first time in this writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Before adverting to the limited issue of violation of the principles of natural justice, it is relevant to extract rule 24(3) and 24(5) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 dealing with the application for renewal for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute in this case. Rule 24(3) of the Rules deals with the factors to be taken into consideration of renewal of licence. As per Rule 24 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (5) of the Rules, no application for licence shall be refused by the licensing authority, unless the applicant is given an opportunity of being heard and the reasons for such refusal are given in writing by the licensing authority. Licence to do a lawful act is a personal right of an individual subject to certain conditions, contravention of the same entails cancellation and others penal consequences. Therefore, invariably whenever an application for grant of licence or renewal is considered by the competent authority, under various statutes, " personal hearing" or "opportunity of being heard" is provided. The show cause notice dated 8.4.2008 of the licensing authority, calling for explanation, from the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence should not be cancelled is extracted herewith. F/f/vz; 106597-,2-07 ehs; 8/04/08 bghUs;/ nghJiw x/g/gs;sp ? ed;dlj;ij ? kh/k/c/ fkpc&d; cj;jut[ ?gpwg;gpj;jy; kDtpid Vd; epuhfhpf;ff; TlhJ Fwpj;J?Fwpj;J/ ??? jpUthsh;fs; md;id bjurh Xl;Leh; gapw;r;rpg;gs;sp chpkk; g[Jg;gpj;jy; kD ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ/ khepy chpik fkpc&d; cj;jut[ SHRC.Case No.9322/2003/SS go 1989k; Mz;L k/ngh/th/tpjp 24 cgtpjp 3?y (1) d;go mg;gs;sp chpikahsh; jpU. M.P.KUnfrd; ed;dlj;ij mw;wth; vd;gJ cWjpahfpwJ/ vdnt Vd; ckJ x/g/gs;sp chpkj;jpid epuhfhpf;ff;TlhJ vd;gjwfhd Kfhe;jpuj;ij VG ehl;fSf;Fs; bjhptpf;FkhW mwptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ xk;-? c/t/mjpfhhp brd;id (nkw;F) bgWeh; jpU/M.P.KUnfrd;. L40b ghujpjhrd; fhydp. brd;ik?78/ 8. When the rule guarantees hearing as a matter of right and the authority is conferred with a power to decide and determine the rights of the party to his prejudice and if the nature of function is intended to be performed is explicit in the Statutory rules, in the manner prescribed under the rules, the same should be exercised in the manner provided in the statutory rules and not otherwise. When the right to be heard is expressly provided as a right in the statute or in the rules framed thereunder, the words "hearing" or "opportunity to be heard", normally denotes a hearing, at which oral submissions may be tendered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. The show cause notice dated 8.4.2008 does not satisfy the mandatory requirement. The licensing authority ought to have issued a show cause notice directing/summoning the licensee to appear in person and that he should have been heard before rejecting the application for renewal of licence. In the light of Rule 24(5) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, this Court is of the view that the respondents have failed to adhere to the statutory rule and thus violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore without going into merits of the case, the writ petition is allowed on the ground of violation of natural justice. While setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondents, the matter is remitted back to the Licensing authority, viz. Regional Transport Authority, Chennai-78, and he is directed to issue appropriate notice to the Licensee/petitioner and offer him an opportunity of being heard, before passing orders on the application for renewal of the licence for the driving school, owned by the petitioner. The notice shall be issued within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, fixing a date for his appearance and explanation. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner shall appear in person and place all the relevant materials in support of his application for renewal of licence and thereafter, the licensing authority shall pass appropriate orders on merits, with reference to the parameters of Rule 24(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, within a period of two weeks. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. vk To: 1.The Special Commissioner & Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Licensing Authority Chennai West/Regional Transport Authority, Chennai-78. + 2 CC To M/s.A.Jenasenan, Advocate SR NO.2161 + 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.2763 W.P.No.25829 of 2008 SCD {CO} TP/23.1.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/