THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5300 of 2010 DATE: 9-3-2010 Between: Velagapudi Ranga Rao … Petitioner And The Dy. Transport Commissioner And Secretary (Addl. Licencing Authority), Vijayawada …. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5300 of 2010 ORDER: Aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 30.1.2010, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is a driver employed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Crime No.3 of 2009 was registered against him in Mylavaram police station on 20.1.2010 for rash and negligent driving on a complaint given by one Sri Vatteru Sai Prasad alleging that, on the night of 20.1.2010, he found a person dead on the road margin. In the impugned proceedings dated 30.1.2010 the Deputy Transport Commissioner notes that the petitioner, while driving the vehicle bearing No.AP 11Z 1033 (HPV), had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of a person; Crime No.3/09, under Section 304(A) I.P.C, had been registered in Mylavaram police station on 20.1.2010; though the petitioner had a valid licence upto 9.12.2010 authorizing him to drive the vehicle, he should show cause, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice and explain why his licence should not be disqualified for a period of six months.. The petitioner was further informed that, if he did not submit his reply, further action would be taken to disqualify the driving licence under Section 19(1)(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the basis of the material available on record. Sri M.Pitchaiah, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.6419 of 2008 dated 29.7.2008 in support of his submission that, in as much the petitioner has not been convicted of the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C, his licence cannot be suspended. He would submit that, since the Deputy Transport Commissioner had already made up his mind, no useful purpose would be served in now submitting a reply to the show cause notice. Learned Counsel would further contend that the petitioner has not even been furnished copies of all the documents required by him for submitting his reply. The judgment of this Court in W.P.No.6419 of 2009 dated 29.7.2008 was in a case where a licence was suspended under Section 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Section 21(1)(a) enables the driving licence to be suspended where it relates to a person previously convicted of an offence punishable under Section 184 and a case is subsequently registered on the allegation that such person has, by such dangerous driving as is referred to in Section 184, caused death or grievous hurt to one or more persons. Section 22(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for suspension or cancellation of the driving licence on conviction. In the aforesaid judgment this Court held that only in case of A previous conviction could action be taken under Section 21 of the Act and, as the petitioner therein was not convicted previously, this Court held that suspension of his licence was not justified. A perusal of the show cause notice in the present case reveals that the action proposed to be taken is not under section 21 or 22 of the Act but is under Section 19(1)(C) of the Act which empowers the Licencing authority on his being satisfied, after giving the holder of the driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that the licence holder is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence, to disqualify the said person from holding the driving licence. The scope of Section 19(1)(C) of the Act did not fall for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.6419 of 2008 dated 29.7.2008. It is necessary to note that the impugned proceedings is merely a show cause notice and, ordinarily, this Court would interdict a show cause notice only if it is without jurisdiction and would otherwise relegate the petitioner to the remedy of submitting his reply to the show cause notice. Since Section 19(1)(C) of the Act, prima facie, confers jurisdiction on the authority to disqualify a person, for a specific period, from holding the licence or to revoke the licence, the impugned proceedings cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction. The observations made in the impugned notice dated 30.1.2010 are mere prima facie views of the competent authority and I have no reason to doubt that, on the petitioner submitting his reply thereto, the competent authority will consider the said reply in accordance with law and pass orders thereupon. Since Section 19 contemplates an opportunity of being heard, the petitioner is entitled to be supplied all documents relevant to the allegations made in the show cause notice. In case the petitioner furnishes details of the documents he requires to submit his reply within one week from today the respondents shall consider the relevance of the documents sought for and, in case they are found necessary for him to submit his explanation to the show cause notice, furnish a copy thereof within one week from the date of receipt of such a representation. Since the time for submitting a reply to the show cause notice has already expired, I consider it appropriate to grant the petitioner two weeks from the date of receipt of a communication from the competent authority regarding his request for supply of the documents, to submit his reply to the show cause notice. In case the petitioner fails to submit his reply to the show cause notice within the time stipulated hereinabove, it is open to the competent authority to pass an order in accordance with law on the basis of the material on record. However, if such a representation is made including on the competence of the authority to take action under Section 19(1)(C) of the Act, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 9-3-2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. asp