ORDER :

1. Mr.S.Prasanth, learned Counsel on record for the writ petitioner is before this virtual Court.

2. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is working as a private Driver with Transport operator from 2013. There was a fatal accident on 06.11.2021 when the writ petitioner was behind the wheel/driving a transport bus. First Information Report (FIR) has been registered inter alia under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the file of Palani Town Police Station.

3. The writ petitioner has arrayed the Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station as respondent No.3. This Court is informed that this is incorrect and the FIR is on the file of Palani Town Police Station. Therefore, the Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District is suo motu impleaded as fourth respondent. Registry to carry out necessary and consequential amendments in the case file before issuing a copy of this order. Though obvious, the amendment should be incorporated and reflected in the copy of the order also before uploading and before furnishing / sending certified copy to all concerned.

4. The matter is still in FIR stage, but the original driving licence seized from the writ petitioner which is now with the first respondent i.e., Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul District (RTO), has not been returned to writ petitioner is learned writ petitioner Counsel's say.

5. Adverting to earlier orders dated 30.04.2019 made in W.P.No.13570 of 2019 and 10.11.2020 made in W.P(MD).No.15797 of 2020 by Honourable Predecessor Single Judges, learned counsel submits that in similar matters, this Court has directed return of original driving licences to the licence holders.

6. The above mentioned two orders are as follows:

W.P.No.13570 of 2019 dated 30.04.2019 :

“Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order of disqualifying his driving license passed by the respondent, dated 02.04.2019 under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (In short "the Act")

3. According to the petitioner, the main ground raised in the present Writ Petition is that the impugned order passed by the respondent is a cryptic one and a non-speaking order. The said order was passed in a printed format, therefore, the petitioner's explanation dated, 13.03.2019 was not at all considered by the respondent. It is further submitted that under Section 19(1) of the Act, the respondent ought to have granted an opportunity of being heard and without granting such opportunity, the respondent passed the impugned order in an arbitrary manner and the same is liable to be set-aside.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that after getting explanation from the petitioner only, the impugned order has been passed and therefore, the petitioner was given opportunity to submit his explanation. However, the plea raised by the petitioner with regard to non-speaking order i.e., in a printed format the impugned order has been passed, the learned Special Government Pleader is not in a position to reply to the said ground raised by the petitioner.

5. At this juncture, it would be useful to extract the impugned order passed by the respondent under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act:-

IMAGE

6. On a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is seen that firstly, the said order of the respondent is a cryptic order and a non-speaking one and no reason whatsoever has been passed. Secondly, an opportunity of personal hearing was not provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, which is in violation of Section 19 of the Act. Thirdly, the said order passed in a printed format and therefore, the order passed by the respondent was not a reasoned one, which is in total non-application of mind.

7. In view of the aforesaid reason, this Cour