WILSON.K.O. Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed seeking to quash Exts.P2 and P3 communications dated 19.10.2017 and 22.09.2017 respectively, whereby the petitioner is prohibited from entering into the office of the 2nd respondent viz., Joint Regional Transport Officer, Irinjalakuda and transacting any business interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the office of the 2nd respondent. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was working as an agent at the Sub Regional Transport Office, Irinjalakuda by providing services to the public, inter alia, for payment of motor vehicle tax, renewal of licence, application for licence, change of address, renewal of permit for vehicles etc. etc. While so, the 3rd respondent, on a complaint received against the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Dileep Kumar, had commenced an investigation/enquiry. As part of the said proceedings, petitioner was summoned as a witness as per Ext.P1 issued under section >160 of the Cr.P.C,, 1973 directing to give evidence that is within his knowledge. Petitioner co-operated and provided all information available with him, is the submission. However, the 1st respondent has passed an order directing that the petitioner be debarred from providing any services to the public at the 2nd respondent's office. This action of the 1st and 2nd respondents by passing Exts.P2 and P3 orders are under challenge, basically on the ground that the same violates the principles of natural justice, and fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner, to earn his livelihood, provided under the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is also submitted that, there was never any adjudication of proceedings against the petitioner, no show cause notice has been issued to him, no hearing conducted nor any finding served on him about his complicity in the matter. It is also stated that, no action has been taken against the aforesaid Dileep Kumar against whom the entire proceedings were initiated, but the petitioner who was summoned as a witness in the case finds himself at the receiving end of the orders on proceeding, which have no bearing on him.