R GANESAN Vs. LICENCING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a driver in the Transport Corporation for 12 years and he was promoted as a senior Driver. He was assigned duty on 20.10.2008 in route No. 775-C. He took the bus on its trip from Pennagaram to Chennai. Near Vettuvanam bus stand, he saw a lorry stationed 50 feet away on the left side of the road. As there was no other traffic, according to the petitioner, he proceeded further. When the bus was nearing the lorry suddenly a lady along with her child emerged into the road, running from behind the stationary lorry. THErefore, he applied brake but when the bus was about to come to a halt, the lady dashed with the bumper of the bus and fell down. THErefore, according to the petitioner, there was nothing wrong on his part and that he was no way responsible for the accident. But by order dated 21.10.2008, the second respondent placed him under suspension for 30 days. According to the petitioner, based on the F.I.R registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pallikonda in F.I.R. No. 514 of 2008, the first respondent issued a show cause dated 7.11.2008 and directed him to show cause as to why his driving licence shall not be revoked under Section 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for which he submitted an explanation on 20.11.2008 stating that he was not responsible for the accident. However, without considering his explanation, the impugned order has been passed on 1.12.2008 by suspending his driving licence for a period of six months from 29.10.2008 to 28.4.2009. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is a non speaking order. Further, according to the petitioner, the second respondent also issued a charge memo dated 3.12.2008 and proceeded with the Departmental enquiry, for which he submitted his reply. THE Departmental enquiry and the criminal case are pending. Hence, in the writ petition he would challenge the impugned order of the first respondent dated 1.12.2008 suspending the licence for a period of six months only on the ground that the authority has not passed a speaking order.

(2.) THOUGH sufficient time has been granted, both the respondents have not filed counter. But on behalf of the licensing authority, the Additional Government Pleader would contend that the procedure as contemplated under the Act has been duly followed and in fact 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplate that if a driver used the vehicle for any cognizable offence, then action could be initiated and accordingly, after complying with all legal formalities and after issuing show cause notice a detailed order has been passed by the first respondent. He would specifically contend that time and again, the accident took place by the negligent driving of the drivers and to curtail such negligent driving, the first respondent has passed the order suspending the licence for a limited period.

(3.) AT this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not making any claim as against the second respondent and he may be permitted to send a representation to the first respondent regarding the emoluments and other details. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded.