AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that no proper reasons had been given by the Respondent in the impugned order, dated 31.12.2010, for suspending the licence of the Petitioner. He had further submitted that the impugned order, which is in a printed format, does not show that the Respondent had applied his mind, while passing the impugned order, dated 31.12.2010.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondent had submitted that the Petitioner has an appellate remedy, under Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief, as prayed for by the Petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the Petitioner to avail the appellate remedy, provided under Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as per law. No costs. Connected M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.