Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate who took notice for the respondent.
2. The petitioner's licence 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 licence of the petitioner from 4.8.2009 to 3.2.2010. This order is challenged in this writ petition.
3. 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 vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Periyakulam.
4. 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.
5. In similar circumstances, this Court has set aside the suspension order which was issued in the printed form. In the Judgement made in W.P.(MD)No.1637 of 2009, in the case of K.Kottiyappan vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Periyakulam, the order was set aside and the Division Bench Judgement of this Court made in W.A.(MD) No.339 of 2009 dated 24.7.2009 in the case of D.Edward Raj vs. 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.
6. 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 thereunder 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.
7. 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 licence 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 licence 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.
kr To The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Trichy.