1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 07.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P(MD)No.892 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,2 & 3 of 2011 C.Arumugam .. Petitioner Vs. The Regional Transport Officer The Regional Transport Office, Sivagangai. .. Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records form the respondent relating to the order of the respondent dated 21.12.2010 in Se.Mu.Order No.52149/E3/2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return the petitioner's driving license to him and award cost. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Addl.Govt.Pleader O R D E R The present writ petition was laid challenging the order of the respondent dated 21.12.2010, in and by which, the driving license of the petitioner was cancelled. 2.The case of the petitioner in nutshell is stated hereunder:- The petitioner was issued with a driving license on 20.07.1992. He is working as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited from the year 1998. On 29.08.2010, when he was driving the vehicle between Aranthangi and Sivagangai via karaikudi and Thirupathur, a cyclist, who was coming from the opposite direction, fell near the bus and sustained injuries. Later, it was reported that he has died. An FIR was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.510 of 2010 under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. 3.While so, his driving license was seized by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and his request to return the same was not considered. The petitioner therefore filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.12176 of 2010. In the meanwhile, a show-cause notice was issued to him under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 explanation from him why his license should not be revoked. He submitted a detailed explanation on 04.11.2010. Thereafter, in the said writ petition, an order was passed on 30.11.2010 directing the respondent to give him personal hearing and to consider his explanation in accordance with law and pass orders. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed suspending his driving license for the period of six months from 15.10.2010 to 14.04.2011. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this present writ petition. 4.Though several grounds have been raised challenging the said order, I am inclined to consider only one objection viz., that the respondent has passed the impugned order without referring to the objections raised by the petitioner to the show-cause notice. From the impugned order it could be seen that the objections raised by the petitioner was not at all considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent is also unable to point out from the impugned order that the respondent has considered the objections raised by the petitioner. 5.In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 21.12.2010 on the sole ground that the said order has been passed without assigning any reasons and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. The respondent is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and pass orders giving reasons thereof. Till the orders are passed, the respondent is directed to handover the license to the petitioner forthwith. 6.The writ petition thus ordered accordingly. No costs. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office,Sivagangai. +1cc to Mr.S.Arunachalam Advocate, Sr.No.11641 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 11744 ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.892 of 2011 07.03.2011 Mpk/SMA/28.3.2011/4C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/