The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of licence effected as per Ext.P5. The petitioner's contention is that a show cause notice was issued at Ext.P3 and despite having filed an objection on 01.10.2014, on the very same day, the licence was cancelled as per Ext.P5. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order on the additional ground that it is a printed form and there is absolutely no application of mind. 2. The learned Government Pleader, would submit that the petitioner has already filed Ext.P6 appeal and the same is pending consideration. The petitioner is disentitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the contention.
3. It is to be noticed though Ext.P3 notice does not contain any date; as per Ext.P5, the notice is seen to have W.P.(C) No.25796 of 2014 - Y 2 been issued on 22.08.2014. Though only seven days time was granted, obviously no orders were passed till 01.10.2014 on which date, the impugned order is passed. The petitioner claims to have filed an objection on 01.10.2014, which allegedly prompted the issuance of the order.
4. On looking at Ext.P5 order, it is clear that there was absolutely no application of mind, since, the dates alone are filled up in a printed form and cancellation of licence has been effected in a mechanical manner. Ext.P5 for that reason alone is set aside. The statutory authorities when conferred with a power, which would lead to penalization of licence holders, with cancellation of licence; definitely the objections ought to be considered and an opportunity of personal hearing also has to be extended. The order passed should also disclose the grounds on which cancellation is effected, failing which the exercise of authority conferred under the Act would be an arbitrary W.P.(C) No.25796 of 2014 - Y 3 exercise.
5. The learned Counsel also points out that none of the reasons for cancellation stated in Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are attracted herein. In any circumstance, on the finding that Ext.P5 has been issued without any application of mind; the same is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the 1st respondent on 23.10.2014, on which date, a personal hearing shall be afforded and a considered oder shall be passed. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case, and the authority conferred with the power to consider the same has to discharge its duties judiciously. There is absolutely no reason, why the appeal should be kept pending.
The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // True Copy // P.A To Judge.