ARJUNA DRIVING SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT MRS M CHITRA Vs. LICENSING AUTHORITY-CUM-THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER DINDIGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner driving school had been established in the year, 1994. About 9000 students had learnt driving from the petitioner driving school. The petitioner school has been functioning adhering to all the necessary conditions, as per the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the rules framed thereunder. No adverse remarks had been recorded against the petitioner driving school.

(3.) IT had been further stated that no opportunity of personal hearing had been given to M.Chitra, by the first respondent, before the licence of the petitioner driving school had been revoked. Further, the second respondent had passed the order rejecting the appeal filed by M.Chitra, without considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand. As such, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are contrary to the relevant provisions of law and the principles of natural justice.