Allowed

Ramar .a v. the Deputy Transport Commissioner

Madras HC21 Feb 2022WP(MD)/2866/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a driving licence holder challenging the cancellation of his licence due to an accident. The court quashed the order for issuing a proper show cause notice in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order cancelling the driving licence and remitted the matter to the first respondent to issue a proper show cause notice.

Ramar .a Vs the Deputy Transport Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP (MD) No. 2866 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.02.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) No.2866 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2504, 2506 and 2508 of 2022

¶5

A.Ramar .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, RTO, Trichy (West), Trichy.

¶8

2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Alangudi Branch, Pudukkottai Region, Pudukkottai District.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the impugned order issued by the first respondent vide her proceedings in Show Cause No.TN45/2022/68, dated 19.01.2022, quash the same and consequently, to return the petitioner's original driving licence bearing No.TN55 19900000711, without any endorsement forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Maniyarasu For Respondents : Mr.M.Prakash Additional Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents, this Writ Petition is allowed as the impugned order cancelling the driving licence of the petitioner on account of the petitioner's alleged involvement in the accident covered by F.I.R.No.2 of 2022, dated 02.01.2022, has been made without issuing a proper show cause notice to the petitioner in terms of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent with liberty to initiate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with

¶14

1/2

¶15

WP (MD) No. 2866 of 2022

¶16

the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar (AD I)

¶17

// True Copy //

¶18

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶19

smn

¶20

¶21

1.The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, RTO, Trichy (West), Trichy. 2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Alangudi Branch, Pudukkottai Region, Pudukkottai District.

¶22

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-7740[F] dated 22/02/2022 )

¶23

WP (MD) No.2866 of 2022 21.02.2022

¶24

MGJ(08.03.2022) 2P 4C

¶25

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

¶26

2/2

Ramar .a v. the Deputy Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramar .a v. the Deputy Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. the Metal Powder Company Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Samsammal Vs the Joint Commissioner

Parimanam .S Vs the Joint Commissioner

Veyilumuthu a Vs the Commissioner

J. Jakkiah Muthuvelu (Died) Vs the Joint Commissioner

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited Vs Director General of Foreign Trade (Dgft)