Judgment : 1. The writ petition has been filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the respondent relating to the order of the respondent dated 18.01.2010 in Se.Mu.O.No.23333/B4/2009, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return the driving license of the petitioner to him. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows; The petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai) Limited and he has been working in Madurai from 1979. While he was driving the transport corporation bus bearing registration No.TN.55 N 0771, which was plying between Kalithari Nagar and Anna Bus stand, at 11.00 am. after passing Avaniyapuram, the bus reached South Veli Street which is a one way. At that time, the people standing on the road side raised alarm and on account of that he stopped the bus. The petitioner and the conductor went down to see what had happened. About 15 meters behind the bus, a person along with his two wheeler was lying on the road with head injury. Immediately, the victim was sent to the hospital in an ambulance and later he died in the hospital. A First Information Report was registered in Cr.No.117 of 2009 by the Traffic Investigation Wing Unit I, Madurai City. Thereafter, on 14.11.2009, the vehicle was produced before the Motor Vehicle Inspector at the office of the respondent herein for inspection. The police seized the petitioners driving license and handed over the same to the respondent on 16.11.2009. Since then the respondent has been keeping the driving license of the petitioner. Request made by the petitioner to return the driving license has not been acceded to by the respondent. 3. On 19.11.2009 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why his license should not be suspended under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.11.2009. On 05.01.2010, the respondent conducted an enquiry in which the petitioner participated and narrated the details about the accident and clearly stated before the respondent that he was not at all responsible for the accident and there was rash and negligence on the part of the two wheeler. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.11.2009. On 05.01.2010, the respondent conducted an enquiry in which the petitioner participated and narrated the details about the accident and clearly stated before the respondent that he was not at all responsible for the accident and there was rash and negligence on the part of the two wheeler. But, without considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the respondent passed the order on 18.01.2010 suspending the license of the petitioner for six months under Section 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said order passed by the respondent is challenged in this writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Corporation. I have also gone through the documents available on record. 5. Though there is, in fact, an alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 19(3) of the Act, a fundamental question is raised as to whether the mere registration of a criminal complaint and the involvement of a driver in a road traffic accident is enough to invoke the power to suspend or revoke a driving licence under the Act. Hence, this writ petition is being considered by this Court on merits. 6. Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, empowers the Licensing Authority to disqualify a person for holding or obtaining any driving licence for a specified period or to revoke any such licence. Similarly, a Court which convicts a person for an offence under the Act, is empowered by Section 20(1) to disqualify such person from holding a driving licence for a specified period. Section 21 makes a driving licence become suspended, if the holder of the licence had been previously convicted of an offence punishable under Section 184 and a case had been registered against him on the allegation of causing the death or grievous injury to one or more person by dangerous driving. Section 22 empowers the Court to cancel or suspend the driving licence, upon conviction or a person for an offence under Section 184. 7. Obviously, Sections 20 and 22 are not applicable to the case on hand, since the action impugned in the writ petition did not arise out of the disqualification ordered by a Court. There is no allegation that the appellant was previously convicted for an offence under Section 184. 7. Obviously, Sections 20 and 22 are not applicable to the case on hand, since the action impugned in the writ petition did not arise out of the disqualification ordered by a Court. There is no allegation that the appellant was previously convicted for an offence under Section 184. Therefore, Section 21 also has no application to the case on hand. Consequently, the only provision to which the respondent could resort to, is Section 19. 8. Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows; "Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence.-(1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he-(a) is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard; or (b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or Psychotropic Substances within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(61 of 1985); or (c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence; or (d) has by his previous conduct as driver of a motor vehicle shown that his driving is likely to be attended with danger to the public; or (e) has obtained any driving licence or a licence to drive a particular class or description of motor vehicle by fraud or misrepresentation; or (f) has committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, having regard to the objects of this Act; or (g) has filed to submit to, or has not passed, the tests referred to in the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 22; or (h) being a person under the age of eighteen years who has been granted a learners licence or a driving licence with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the holder of the licence and has ceased to be in such care, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order-(i) disqualifying that person for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence; or (ii) revoke any such licence. (2) Where an order under sub-section (1) is made, the holder of a driving licence shall forthwith surrender his driving licence to the licensing authority making the order, if the diving licence has not already been surrendered, and the licensing authority shall,-(a) If the driving licence is a driving licence issued under this Act, keep it until the disqualification has expired or has been removed; or (b) if it is not a driving licence issued under this Act, endorse the disqualification upon it and send it to the licensing authority by which it was issued; or (c) in the case of revocation of any licence, endorse the revocation upon it and if it is not the authority which issued the same, intimate the fact of revocation to the authority which issued that licence: Provided that where the driving licence of a person authorises him to drive more than one class or description of motor vehicles and the order, made under sub-section (1), disqualifies him from driving any specified class or description of motor vehicles, the licensing authority shall endorse the qualification upon the driving licence and return the same to the holder. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order made by a licensing authority under Sub-section (1) may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, appeal to the prescribed authority, and such appellate authority shall give notice to the licensing authority and hear either party if so required by that party and may pass such orders as it thinks fit and an order passed by any such appellate authority shall be final." 9. A bare reading of Section 19(1) shows that licensing authority has power to revoke any licence or disqualify a person for a specified period from holding or obtaining a driving licence, if any of the contingencies prescribed in Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub Section (1) of Section (19) arise. Moreover, the power under Section 19(1) could be invoked only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the holder of the licence and for reasons to be recorded in writing. 10. Moreover, the power under Section 19(1) could be invoked only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the holder of the licence and for reasons to be recorded in writing. 10. But in the case on hand, the licence of the petitioner herein was retained by the police authorities and handed over to the respondent hererin and thereafter the respondent issued show cause notice dated 19.11.2009 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his licence should not be suspended or revoked or cancelled permanently. The petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 30.11.2009. 11. In and by communication dated Nil.12.2009, the respondent not having satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner called upon him to appear for an enquiry on 05.01.2010 at 11.00 a.m. Once again the petitioner gave a detailed explanation on 05.01.2010 stating that there was no rash and negligence on his part. Further he has stated that a criminal case on the basis of the first information report in Cr.No.117 of 2009 under Section 304(A) of IPC is pending before the criminal Court. He has stated therein that only on the outcome of the said criminal case, rash and negligence will be determined. Hence, he requested the respondent not to take any action. But, the respondent by order dated 18.01.2010 by invoking the powers under 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act temporarily suspended the licence for a period of six months. Aggrieved against the above, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 12. A reading of the impugned order temporarily suspending the licence of the petitioner for a period of six months would show that action has been taken solely on the basis of the first information report submitted by the police. No witness has been examined in the enquiry confirming that there was a rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner/driver. Moreover, the criminal case is also pending and as rightly submitted by the petitioner, rash and negligence can be known only on the outcome of the pending criminal proceedings. Further, there is no allegation either in the notice or in the impugned order in the writ petition that the petitioner is a habitual criminal or habitual drunkard so as to attract Clause (a) of Section 19(1) of the Act. Further, there is no allegation either in the notice or in the impugned order in the writ petition that the petitioner is a habitual criminal or habitual drunkard so as to attract Clause (a) of Section 19(1) of the Act. Neither the show cause notice nor the order impugned in the writ petition imputes the petitioner with any of the ingredients necessary under Clauses (b) to (h) of Sub Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. Except stating that as per the report of the Inspector of Police, the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving, the impugned order does not indicate the category in Clauses "(a)" to "(h)" of of Section 19(1), under which the case of the petitioner would fall. 13. The respondent has, in the impugned order, preconcluded the issue that the petitioner is guilty of rash and negligent driving, even before the criminal Court or the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal went into the issue. Even to invoke Section 19(1)(c), it is necessary to show that the Motor Vehicle is used in the commission of a cognizable offence. Without making a specific averment regarding the same, the order suspending the driving licence cannot be taken to be passed after due application of mind. 14. In view of the above, the impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality which cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.01.2010, in Se.Mu.O.No.23333/B4/2009 is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is hereby directed to return the driving license of the petitioner forthwith.