Judgment :- The petitioner is an auto driver by profession. He obtained driving licence in the year 2002, and it was valid up to 22.3.2008. On 25.8.2005, an accident took place, when he was driving the auto. The auto was carrying six children and they were to be dropped at St. Joseph’s School, King koti. According to the petitioner, when he was crossing Basheerbagh, with the green signal on, a car came from Liberty side in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the auto being driven by the petitioner. It resulted in injury to a child, who died while undergoing treatment. A case was registered against the petitioner. Since the death was of a school going child, the incident naturally received public attention and was covered by Press. On the basis of the news reports, the accident vehicle was seized. The 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice, dated 31.8.2005, to the petitioner, directing him to explain as to why the driving licence shall not be cancelled. The petitioner states that he submitted an application to the show-cause notice, on 12.9.2005. The 2nd respondent cancelled the licence of the petitioner, through his proceedings dated 23.9.2005. The same is challenged on several grounds. The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent is the licensing authority and he did not issue any show-cause notice. It is also stated that the 1st respondent, who is not the licensing authority, issued the show-cause notice, but did not pass any orders. The petitioner further submits that though the 2nd respondent referred to the show-cause notice, issued by the 1st respondent, he did not make any mention to the explanation submitted thereto. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. In this, reference is made to the show-cause notice dated 31.8.2005, however, it is alleged that the petitioner failed to submit any explanation, even after receipt of the show-cause notice. An objection is raised to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had the remedy of appeal, under rule 9 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules. The averments of the petition, as to the events that led to the accident, is denied by the 2nd respondent. Sri Ch. An objection is raised to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had the remedy of appeal, under rule 9 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules. The averments of the petition, as to the events that led to the accident, is denied by the 2nd respondent. Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the driving licence was issued to the petitioner, under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the 2nd respondent, and if he intends to cancel the licence, he was under obligation to issue show-cause notice. He contends that the 1st respondent has nothing to do with the granting of licence, but he has chosen to issue the show-cause notice. Learned counsel submits that the impugned proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the 2nd respondent did not issue any show-cause notice, and having taken into account the one, issued by the 1st respondent, he did not make any reference to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, in reply thereto. Learned Government Pleader for Transport submits that the petitioner had a remedy by way of an appeal, and the present writ petition is not maintainable. He contends that though the 2nd respondent is the licensing authority, being part of the Regional Transport Authority, it was competent for the 1st respondent, to issue show-cause notice, and for the 2nd respondent, to act upon the same. The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, through which his driving licence was cancelled. This court cannot go into the facts that led to the cancellation of licence. It is the decision making process than the decision itself, which arises for consideration. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent is a licensing authority, under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner holds a driving licence, which is valid up to 22.3.2008. The occurrence of accident is a matter of record. In case, the 2nd respondent was of the view that there was any lapse on the part of the petitioner, warranting cancellation of licence, he ought to have issued show-cause to the petitioner, indicating the reasons for the proposed action. However, the show-cause notice dated 31.8.2005 was issued by the 1st respondent, alleging that the petitioner had carried more number of persons in the auto, than what is permitted under the rules. However, the show-cause notice dated 31.8.2005 was issued by the 1st respondent, alleging that the petitioner had carried more number of persons in the auto, than what is permitted under the rules. On receipt of this, the petitioner submitted explanation on 9.9.2005, and it was acknowledged by the office of the 1st respondent, on 12.9.2005. The application of mind to the facts of the case was by the 1st respondent. Therefore, it was for him to have passed any order, if he was otherwise competent. Beyond issuance of show-cause notice and receiving the explanation, the 1st respondent did not do anything. The 2nd respondent, however, swung into action and passed the impugned order, dated 23.9.2005. Instances are not lacking, where the show-cause notice is issued by one authority, and after receiving the explanation thereto, the matter is examined by a different authority, who in turn would pass the final order. Here, the relevant provisions do not permit such a course of action. Even assuming that it was competent for the 2nd respondent to have acted upon the notice issued by the 1st respondent, it was obligatory on his part, to have examined the explanation offered by the petitioner. The impugned proceedings made a reference to the show-cause notice, dated 31.8.2005, but not the explanation, dated 9.9.2005. Therefore, the impugned order suffers, not only because of violation of principles of natural justice, but also for non-application of mind. The allegation as to lack of jurisdiction for the 1st respondent, to have initiated the proceedings for cancellation of licence, is another aspect. The net result is that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It shall be open to the 2nd respondent, to take necessary action, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.