R. SENTHILKUMAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (RTO)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed as against the impugned show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent/the Regional Transport Officer, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli, calling for an explanation from the petitioner as to why his driving license should not be disqualified under Sec. 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. While he was driving a bus bearing Reg.No.TN45 N 3837 on 14/1/2024, an accident had occurred, due to which, a case was registered as against the petitioner under Ss. 279 and 304 (A) IPC. The respondent Police seized the petitioner's driving license and handed over the same to the first respondent. Now, the first respondent has issued the impugned show cause notice.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that while the petitioner was driving the bus on 14/1/2024, suddenly, a lady, who suffered from mental retardation, crossed the road and though the petitioner suddenly applied the break, the bus dashed against the lady and the accident had occurred. He further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. The first respondent, by referring the provisions of Sec. 19 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, has initiated action to impound the petitioner's driving licence, for which, the impugned show cause notice has been issued. He further submits that the deceased in this case is a mentally retarded person and the investigation in this case is yet to be completed. Only on the filing of final report, it would reveal that whether there is any negligence on the part of the petitioner and in the absence of any material that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner in the said accident, it is not proper on the part of the first respondent to initiate action for impounding the driving licence.