Allowed

K.Suresh v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC15 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3916/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order cancelling a driving license. Setting aside an order passed in a cyclostyle format without reasons, the court held it violated natural justice. Liberty was granted for a fresh, reasoned enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the driving license is set aside. Liberty granted for a fresh enquiry with reasons.

K.Suresh Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

K.Suresh

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.03.2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR W.P.(MD) No.3916 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.3093 of 2017

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Dindigul.

¶7

... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, for calling for the records pertaining to impugned order passed by the respondent in its proceedings in Se.Mu.Order No.69527, dated 13.02.2017 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return the petitioner's original driving license.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Special Government Pleader

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 13.02.2017 cancelling the driving license of the petitioner.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶14

A case was registered in Crime No.310 of 2016 in Kannivadi Police Station against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. It is stated that the respondent has obtained the petitioner's driving license on 15.12.2016. Though the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 16.12.2016 directing the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner's driving license should not be suspended and explanation was offered by the petitioner, the respondent has passed the impugned order in a cyclostyle format without considering the explanation that was offered by the petitioner. There is total non application of mind and the order does not disclose the consideration of the petitioner's explanation.

¶15

In such circumstances, the order passed in the printed format without assigning any reason cannot be sustained as it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clearly establish non application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice. It has been repeatedly reiterated by

¶16

¶17

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India about the importance of reasons to be assigned by the quasi judicial authority or Executive authority while passing orders affecting the civil rights of the individual concerned. This court earlier in a similar case in P .Duraisamy Vs. the Licensing Authority, the Regional Transport Officer, the Regional Transport Office, Periyakulam in 2010(3)L.W. 472 set aside the similar order after elaborately discussing the power and responsibilities of the respondent before finding anyone to be disqualified to hold license for having committed an act, which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to public.

¶18

Since the order is passed in the printed format without assigning any reason, this court sets aside the impugned order. However, liberty is given to the respondent to conduct an enquiry afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order. As a result, the impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside. However, liberty is given to the respondent to conduct an enquiry afresh and pass orders after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and by giving reasons.

¶19

In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD) No.3093 of 2017 is closed.

¶20

SD/-

¶21

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CO)

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶24

¶25

The Regional Transport Office,Regional Transport Office,Dindigul +1 CC TO MR.S.PON SENTHIL KUMARAN,ADVOCATE,SR NO.15323

¶26

+1 CC TO MR.SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SR NO.15094

¶27

¶28

MAS/SV-MMS:23.03.2017:2P-4C

¶29

W.P.(MD) No. 3916 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.3093 of 2017 15.03.2017

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Suresh v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Suresh v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Chitra, Vs the District Collector

L. Letchumikanthan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

C. Subburayan Vs the Additional Secretary/

Vs.R.Shanmugam, Vs the Chief Engineer

K.Ramadoss Vs the Principal Secretary and

T.Gowri Vs the State of Tamil Nadu