THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.27701 of 2008 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 22.09.2008 passed in R.No.10080/C2/2006 by the second respondent by which the driving licence of the petitioner has been suspended for a period of six months from 22.09.2008 to 21.03.2009. 2 The impugned order is mainly questioned on the ground that the respondents have wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) in passing the impugned order. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was not convicted previously for an offence punishable under section 184 of the Act. In that view of the matter, there is no power to the respondents to suspend his licence. It is further pleaded that the impugned action is not preceded by any show cause notice and any enquiry. 3 While admitting the Writ Petition, this court, by way of an interim order dated 22.12.2008, suspended the impugned order. Though this Writ Petition is of the year 2008, no counter affidavit has been filed. 4 Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order. In the impugned order there is no finding with regard to previous conviction of the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 184 of the Act. Invoking the power of suspension of driving licence under Section 21 of the Act applies only in case there was a previous conviction for an offence punishable under section 184 of the Act. Further, from the record, it is clear that the petitioner was also not given any opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. From a perusal of the contents of the impugned order, it appears that it is not an order of suspension pending enquiry, but it is an order of suspension as a measure of punishment for a period of six months. As Section 21 is not attracted, the respondents should not have passed the impugned order without conducting an enquiry and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. In the absence of any counter rebutting the allegations of the petitioner and in view of the contention of the petitioner that he was not convicted for the offence punishable under section 184 of the Act previously, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.09.2008 passed in R.No.10080/C2/2006 by the second respondent is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. ------------------------ R.Subhash Reddy, J. 28.10.2011 Kvsn