KINGSTON MOTORS Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a registered partnership firm and the authorized dealer for 'IZUZU SAMRAT TRUCKS' in Palakkad District. On 21.06.2017, at 2.42 p.m., petitioner received an e-mail message from the 1st respondent's official website titled 'show cause notice'. The said message was attached with a file also titled 'show cause notice'. A true copy of the said e-mail message is produced as Ext.P1. The attached file when opened revealed a show cause notice also dated 21.06.2017 signed by the 1st respondent, evident from Ext.P2.

(2.) According to the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent in his 'letter' referred to therein had reported that, the 2nd respondent had while considering an application for registration of a tipper lorry submitted by one of the customers of the petitioner, found the insurance cover note submitted along with the application for registration to be a 'suspected one'. The basis of the said finding is that the insurance cover note was issued on 31.03.2017, whereas the insurance is seen valid only from 27.04.2017 to 26.04.2018.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the business place of the petitioner is barely 5 kms. away from the office of the 1st respondent. Therefore, immediately on receipt of Ext.P1 e- mail, petitioner personally met the 1st respondent at around 5.00 p.m. on the same day, i.e. 21.06.2017. However, neither a copy of the alleged letter of the 2nd respondent referred to in Ext.P2 show cause notice was given to the petitioner, nor did the 1st respondent deign to hear the petitioner even though he waited at the office till 7.00 p.m. on 21.06.2017, and the 1st respondent left his office without paying any heed to the petitioner.