AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate who took
notice for the Respondent.
The Petitioner''s license was seized by the Respondent as the Petitioner has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused
thereafter loss of human being and show cause notice was issued on 12.6.2009 to the Petitioner to submit his explanation. The Petitioner submitted
his explanation on 29.7.2009 and thereafter the Respondent passed the impugned order suspending the license of the Petitioner from 4.8.2009 to
3.2.2010. This order is challenged in this writ petition.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it was passed without any application of mind
and it is in the printed form and the same has been deprecated by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 1637 of 2009, in the case of K. Kottiyappan v.
The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Periyakulam.
Mr. R. Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent submitted that an appeal is provided under the Act and the Petitioner
has to file an appeal.
In similar circumstances, this Court has set aside the suspension order which was issued in the printed form. In the judgment made in W.P.
(MD) No. 1637 of 2009, in the case of K. Kottiyappan v. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport
Office, Periyakulam, the order was set aside and the Division Bench judgment of this Court made in W.A. (MD) No. 339 of 2009 dated
24.7.2009 in the case of D. Ed ward Raj v. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Madurai,
the Division Bench has set aside the order on the ground of non-application of mind and for the reason that no reason was stated in the order.
In this case, it is admitted that the suspension order was passed by filling up the blanks in the printed form and as per Rule 21 of the Central
Motor Vehicle Rules, only the acts mentioned there under will constitute danger to the public or nuisance. Therefore, in such circumstances, I have
passed an order in W.P. (MD) Nos. 6900 and 7905 of 2009 dated 6.9.2009 setting aside the order of suspension.
Hence, following the order as stated above, the impugned order is set aside and accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. However, it is always
open to the Respondent to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The Respondent is also directed to return the driving license as the
order has been set aside in this writ petition and the Petitioner is also directed to under take before the Respondent to produce the driving license
whenever demanded by the Respondent for taking action in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are
also closed.