The petitioner, a driver by profession, has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P1 order of the 1st respondent by which, the petitioner has been disqualified from holding the driving licence issued to him, for a period of one year, from 20.03.2012 to 19.03.2013. The petitioner while driving a bus was involved in a motor accident. The bus collided with a goods autorickshaw on 16.02.2012 and the driver of the autorickshaw was killed. The bus also rammed into a nearby house destroying the walls thereof. Crime No.174 of 2012 has been registered by the North Paravur Police in respect of the incident, charge sheeting the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. In view of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the 1st respondent also initiated action and by Ext.P1 the petitioner has been disqualified from holding a driving licence as stated above. The order Ext.P1 states that a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner as per the reference third cited therein and that, his explanation had been considered but, was found to be not satisfactory.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P1 order is dated 16.03.2012, while reference No.3 shows that the petitioner had been personally heard on 20.03.2012. The above glaring discrepancy, according to the petitioner, renders the hearing if any afforded to him, illusory. At any rate, according to the petitioner, it shows that the petitioner was not heard before the order Ext.P1 was passed. Reliance is also placed on Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`the Act' for short) to contend that according to the mandate of the said provision, the petitioner should have been heard before Ext.P1 was passed. It is a mandatory requirement that has not been complied with, it is pointed out. It is further contended that the petitioner is not a habitual criminal or a habitual offender and only in the case of such habitual offenders, Section 19 is attracted. Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P1.

4. The learned Government Pleader opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit narrating the circumstances under which Ext.P1 order was issued. According to Ext.P1, the accident caused by the petitioner was a serious one in which the autorickshaw driver was killed and extensive damage was caused to a house. In the wake of the motor accident, the petitioner's licence was seized and the vehicles involved in the accident were subjected to examination by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The Motor Vehicles Inspector impounded the licence of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the Joint Regional Transport Officer along with his report, Ext.R1(a). A typed copy thereof is Ext.R1(b). The Motor Vehicles Inspector has in his report found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and that the vehicles did not suffer from any mechanical defect. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation, Ext.R1(c) on 20.03.2012. After considering the petitioner's explanation, it is contended that the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P1 order and a copy thereof was given to the petitioner also. Ext.R1(d) is produced to show that the petitioner has acknowledged on it that he had received a copy thereof.

5. It is the case of the 1st respondent that, Ext.P1 was not issued on 16.03.2012, but only on 20.03.2012. According to the counter affidavit, the discrepancy in the date was the result of a mistake that occurred while taking the print out. Since the petitioner was heard before Ext.P1 was passed, it is contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the said order. The learned Government Pleader has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 09.09.2