REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

S Govindarasu Appellant

V/S

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HEMANTH KUMAR V. S.N. MUKHERJEE [REFERRED]
ABID MOHD. KHAN V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA V. SANKALCHAND HIMATLAL SHETH AND ANR. [REFERRED]
AUTHORISED OFFICER,THANJAVUR AND ANR. V. S.NAGANATHA AYYAR,ETC. [REFERRED]
D.K. TRIVEDI V. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
DHANMULL V. R.T.AUTHORITY [REFERRED]
TINSUKHIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,V. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED]
MOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED]
GAURI SHANKAR GAUR AND ORS. ETC.,V. STATE OF U.P.,AND ORS. [REFERRED]
SECRETARY,HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V. SURESH AND OTHER ETC. [REFERRED]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.,AND ORS. V. NATIONAL UNION WATER FRONT WORKERS AND ORS. ETC. [REFERRED]
BALRAM KUMAWAT V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
BALASINOR NAGRIK COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,V. BABUBHAI [REFERRED]
SYED HASAN RASUL NUMA V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
V. SEETHARAMAN V. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,MADURAI SOUTH [REFERRED]
P. SETHURAM V. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY,THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,DINDIGUL [REFERRED]
NASIRUDDIN V. SITA RAM AGARWAL [REFERRED]
R.SRIDHARAN V. PRESIDING OFFICER [REFERRED]
R S RAGHUNATH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
MOHAMMAD ALI KHAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX NEW DELHI [REFERRED]
ANWAR HASAN KHAN VS. MOHAMMAD SHAFI [REFERRED]
RAM SAHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
R S PILLAI VS. M L PERATCHI ALIAS SOLVI [REFERRED]
M SATHYANATHAN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Regional Transport Officer, Thanjavur dated 11.07.2011, under which the driving licence of the Petitioner has been temporarily suspended from 17.06.2011 to 16.12.2011, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. At the outset, it is to be noted that there is an alternative remedy provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to prefer an appeal, against the impugned order, which admittedly has not been availed.

(2.) Mr. Arunachalam, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that registration of the F.I.R. is only to enable the police authorities to investigate into a crime and beyond that, it does not have any evidentiary value. He, further submitted that, the Respondent, being a quasi judicial authority, has to conduct a detailed enquiry before suspending the licence, by examining witnesses. He also submitted that unless a Court of competent jurisdiction, declares the Petitioner guilty of commission of an offence, the licence of the Petitioner cannot be suspended/ cancelled. On the above grounds, he prayed for interference.

(3.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

Click here to view full judgment.

S GOVINDARASU Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address