1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/06/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No.5801 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1,2 and 3 of 2011 R.Boopalan S/o.Rengarajan, 176, Reddiyar Street Alathudaiyanpatti & Post Thuraiyur TK, Trichy District. ... Petitioner Vs The Regional Transport Officer The Regional Transport Office, Thanjavur ... Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the respondent relating to the order of the respondent dated 23.05.2011 passed in NA.Ka.No.20587/E5/2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return petitioner's driving license to him and award cost. For petitioner ... Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Addl.Govt.Pleader O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. By consent, the Writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Challenging the impugned order of the respondent dated 23.05.2011, suspending the license of the petitioner from 20.05.2011 to 19.11.2011, the present petition has been filed. 4. The case of the petitioner as put forth by him in his affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition in nutshell, is stated hereunder: The petitioner is working as a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited from 2009. On https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 07.05.2011, when he was driving a vehicle, an accident took place and a case has been registered against him under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice calling upon him, why an action cannot be taken to suspend his license? The petitioner offered his explanation for the same. While so, without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent and hence, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for the relief stated earlier. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that when an explanation has been offered by the petitioner for the show cause notice issued by the respondent, the license of the petitioner cannot be suspended. It is expected that the respondent shall pass an order after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. However, in the case on hand. No reason has been given in the impugned order, why the explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted, except saying that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not acceptable. No other reason has been given. That apart, he has contended that the impugned order came to be passed only on the basis of the first information report filed against the petitioner and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due notice to the petitioner and after holding enquiry and hence it does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader. 8. In the case on hand, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why his driving license shall not be suspended. The petitioner offered his explanation for the same. However, without considering the said explanation offered by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed, merely on the ground that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory. That apart, the respondent has taken into account only the first information report filed against the petitioner, while passing the impugned order. 9. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 23.05.2011, and the writ petition stands allowed. It is needless to say that the respondent is at liberty to pass orders afresh, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner and after holding enquiry. The driving license, which has been seized from the petitioner, has to be returned by the respondent forthwith. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The Regional Transport Officer The Regional Transport Office, Thanjavur +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No.19237 rr ssk/24.06.2011 /3c-3p/- W.P.(MD) No.5801 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 17.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/