1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.1855 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 A.Chinna Durai ... Petitioner Vs The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Thanjavur. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the respondent relating to the order of the respondent dated 10.02.2011 passed in Na.Ka.No.4089/E5/2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return the driving licence of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.P.Thilak kumar,Addl.Govt.Pleader ORDER Challenging the impugned order of the respondent dated 10.02.2011, the petitioner is before this Court. In and by which the said impugned order, the licence of the petitioner was suspended for a period of six months from 29.01.2011 to 28.07.2011. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd. On 29.01.2011, when he was driving the bus, there was an accident. Due to which, the vehicle caused an injury to a person. The petitioner claims that he is not responsible for the said accident. However, a case has been registered against him under Section 304(A) of IPC in Crime No.43 of 2011 before the Thanjavur University Police Station. As a result, the petitioner was directed to produce his driving licence before the respondent and he did so. Thereupon, the respondent has caused a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him why his driving licence should not be cancelled. To which, the petitioner gave his explanation. However, the respondent without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner has passed the present the impugned order. Hence, the present Writ Petition for the relief stated earlier. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, an explanation was offered by him. However, the same has not been considered by the respondent, while passing the impugned order. Hence, according to him, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Mr.P.Thilak kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that since the case has been registered against the petitioner under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. pending final orders on the proceeding taken out by the respondent under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, the impugned order came to be passed and there is no infirmity in the said impugned order. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd. It is also not in dispute the a case has been registered against the petitioner under 304(A) of I.P.C. in view of the accident that took place when the petitioner was driving the vehicle. Pursuant to which, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice seeking explanation from him as to why his driving licence should not be suspended, is also not in dispute. Therefore, the petitioner has offered explanation for the same. In the impugned order, no where, there is any reference about the explanation offered by the petitioner. When the petitioner offered his explanation for the show cause notice, it is expected that the respondent should consider the said explanation and pass appropriate orders. However, the impugned order came to be passed without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. 6. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to quash the impugned order only on the ground that the said impugned order came to be passed without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. Needless to say that it is always open to the respondent to pass orders afresh after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner and after conducting due enquiry. The respondent is directed to return the driving licence of the petitioner forthwith. In the result, the Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, M.Ps are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO ) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Thanjavur. +1cc to Mr.S.Arunachalam Advocate, Sr.No.14344 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 14617 W.P.(MD)No.1855 of 2011 20.04.2011 ssm/SMA/21.4.2011/4C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/