IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13934 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SUNILKUMAR PARAYIL, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 36 YEARS, "SARNAS", POST KARAPERAVOOR, VIA MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VADAKARA. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANNUR. 3. ASSISTANT LICENSING AUTHORITY, THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C) No. 13934 of 2008-H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was driving a bus which was involved in an accident causing death to one and serious injury to another. 2. Following the accident, he was issued with Ext.P5 charge memo calling upon to show cause why his driving licence should not be cancelled. According to the petitioner, in response to Ext.P5 issued by the Licensing Authority, he gave Ext.P6 reply. Ext.P7 is a notice dated 27/03/2008 requiring the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing within seven days of receipt of the same. 3. Ext.P7 was received by the petitioner only on 26/04/2008 and simultaneously, he received Ext.P9 dated 17/04/2008, cancelling his licence. 4. In this writ petition, though the petitioner has raised several contentions including the competency of the first respondent to issue Ext.P9, I do not think it necessary for this Court to examine the same at this stage, as the order deserves to be interfered for violation of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles W.P.(C).No.13934/2008-H -: 2 :- Act and also the principles of natural justice. It is for the reason that under Section 19(1) of the M.V Act, the Licensing Authority is competent to take action thereunder only after giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard. In this case, it is fairly clear that while the petitioner received a notice of hearing only on 26/04/2008, the licence was already cancelled by Ext.P9 order dated 17/04/2008. Since there is violation of Section 19(1) of the Act and also that the petitioner was denied an opportunity of being heard as contemplated thereunder, I quash Ext.P9 and remit the matter to be reconsidered by the first respondent, who has issued the same. 5. I may clarify that I have not gone into the contentions raised by the petitioner including the competency of the first respondent etc., and it will be open to the petitioner to canvass such contentions before the first respondent. 6. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance who shall reconsider the matter without any delay. This writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge ms