K. J. SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE question raised in this writ petition relates to the jurisdiction of the R. T. O. , Dharwar to, suspend the driving licence of the petitioner. The petitioner is a driver in the karnataka State Road Transport corporation at Hubli Division. The vehicle which he was driving met with an accident and the Police have registered a case under Crime No- 16179 for an offence of rash and negligent driving and the case is still pending before the Criminal Court. In the meantime, the R. T. O. Dharwar (respondent) suspended the driving licence of the petitioner till the criminal case is disposed of. The order made by the respondent reads:"the applicant is hereby informed* that the D. L. has been renewed upto 4-10-1982 and the D. L. holder is involved in a criminal case registered in Byadagi P. S. Cr. No. 16-79 under section 279, 339, 304 (A) IPC and the D. L. is suspended till the case is disposed off. " ( 2 ) THE petitioner challenges the validity of that order. The question herein is whether the respondent was competent to suspend the driving licence of the petitioner. ( 3 ) UNDER Rule 4 of the Karnataka motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, the RTO has been constituted as the licensing authority for the issue of Driving licence. But, the rules confer no power on the licensing authority to disqualify any person for holding or obtaining a driving licence. That power has been expressly preserved to the regional Transport Authority. S. 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides:"16 (1 ). A Regional Transport authority constituted under Chapter iv may for reasons to be recorded in writing and subject to any prescribed conditions declare any person disqualified, for a specified period, for holding of obtaining a licence to drive any transport vehicle or a transport vehicle of a particular class or description in the State. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of a Regional Transport authority made under sub-section (1) may within thirty days of the receipt of intimation of such order appeal against the order to the prescribed authority. " ( 4 ) RULE 27 (2) of the Motor Vehicles rules is also on the same line. It authorises only the Regional Transport authority to disqualify a person from driving any vehicle. " ( 4 ) RULE 27 (2) of the Motor Vehicles rules is also on the same line. It authorises only the Regional Transport authority to disqualify a person from driving any vehicle. This power cannot even be delegated to the RTO since rule 96 does not provide for it. The r. T. O. therefore has no power to suspend the driving licence. ( 5 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Since the respondent remains unrepresented, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .