Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent dated 08.02.2010 by which, the first respondent by exercising powers under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called as Act) has temporarily suspended the driving licence of the petitioner for the period from 08.02.2010 to 08.05.2010. 3. The petitioner, who has got a driving license to run light motor vehicle on 06.12.1993 has also obtained license to drive heavy transport vehicle on 24.05.1995 and subsequently, the same was renewed. According to the petitioner, the same was valid upto 05.12.2011. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined in a private transport company in 1995 and he is not involved in any accident and no complaint of rash and negligent driving in the past 15 years. It is stated that while he was driving a private bus bearing Registration No.TN 56A 5888 on 25.01.2010 from Dharapuram to Coimbatore, while nearing V.Kallipalayam, a lorry came on the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and to avoid collision, the petitioner has turned right and at that time, one Raman, who was under the influence of alcohol was hit and sustained head injuries and succumbed to injuries. On the basis of a complaint, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner under Section 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palladam on 26.01.2010. It is stated that the second respondent has called the petitioner to appear before him on 02.02.2010 and he has also signed the explanation prepared by the staff of the first respondent at the instance of the first respondent. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that a show cause notice was received by him on 10.02.2010, which was issued under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act based on the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Palladam. It is also his case that the report of the Inspector was not served on him and after receiving the said notice, when the petitioner was preparing to give explanation, the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 08.02.2010 came to be served on him. 6. It is also his case that the report of the Inspector was not served on him and after receiving the said notice, when the petitioner was preparing to give explanation, the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 08.02.2010 came to be served on him. 6. The impugned order is challenged on various grounds that it is arbitrary, illegal and without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner ; that it is contrary to the provisions of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ; that the first respondent has not furnished the report of the Inspector of Police, Palladam ; that the order has been passed without jurisdiction ; that the order passed under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not valid ; that the petitioner has never involved in any accident earlier which fact has not been taken into consideration while the first respondent passing the impugned order. 7. Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction and the power to suspend the driving license is not available to the first respondent under Section 19 of the Act and on the other hand, if a power is exercised under Section 19 of the Act, holder of the driving license has to be given proper opportunity of being heard and under Section 21 of the Act, when a person was previously convicted for the offence punishable under Section 184 of the Act, driving license can be suspended for a period of 6 months and therefore according to him, when it is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner was previously convicted for the offence under Section 184 of the Act, the order passed under Section 19 of the Act without giving due opportunity to the petitioner is without jurisdiction. It is also his submission that the show cause notice which has been issued to the petitioner dated 28.01.2010 was actually posted by the respondents only on 06.02.2010, which was received by the petitioner on 10.02.2010 and even before the petitioner could file his objections and avail the opportunity of being heard, the impugned order of suspending the license came to be passed on 08.02.2010 and therefore, the impugned order even if it is passed under Section 19 of Act has to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. 8. 8. It is his further submission that while under the show cause notice, the petitioner is asked to show cause as to why the driving license should not be cancelled, in the impugned order, the first respondent has chosen to suspend the driving license. The cancellation of the license can be done based on any one of the disqualification enumerated under Section 19(1) of the Act and inasmuch as such clause has not been specifically mentioned in the impugned order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He would also rely upon the various judgments including the Division Bench judgment of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in P.Sethuram Vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Dindigul reported in 2010 Writ Law Reporter(WLR) 100. Apart from the above, two decisions of the learned single judges of this court is also cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his contention that in the absence of proper opportunity being given, action under Section 19 of the Act is not sustainable. 9. On the other hand, Ms.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents even though has not filed counter made her submissions based on records and instructions. 10. The learned Government Advocate submitted that in fact the petitioner has voluntarily given his explanation for the show cause notice dated 28.01.2010 and that explanation was submitted on 02.02.2010 and the first respondent while passing the impugned order has in fact considered the said explanation and therefore, the right of the petitioner of being heard is complied with. She would also rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Court in V.Seetharaman Vs. Regional Transport Office, Madurai reported in (2008) 7 MLJ 296 to substantiate her contention that Section 19(1)(c) of the Act would enable the authorities to suspend the license on the ground of commission of cognizable offence and therefore, according to her under Section 19(1) (c) of the Act, inasmuch as the petitioner has committed cognizable offence for which the motor vehicle was used, certainly, the authorities are empowered to suspend the license, which is for a limited period. 11. Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is as follows:- " 19. 11. Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is as follows:- " 19. 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 substance 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 failed to submit to, or has not passed, the tests referred to in the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 22 ; or (h) being a person under the age of eighteen years who has been granted a learner a 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 " Hence, Section 19(1) of the Act empowers the licensing authorities either to revoke the license or to disqualify a person for a specific period for holding the driving license. 12. 12. On the other hand, Section 21(1) of the Act is as follows:-" Suspension of driving licence in certain cases:- (1) Where, in relation to a person who had been previously convicted of an offence punishable under Section 184, a case is registered by a police officer on the allegation that such person has, by such dangerous driving as is referred to in the said section 184, of any class or description of motor vehicles caused the death of, or grievous hurt to, one or more persons, the driving licence held by such person shall in relation to such class or description of motor vehicle become suspended- (a) for a period of six months from the date on which the case is registered, or (b) if such person is discharged or acquitted before the expiry of the period aforesaid until such discharge or acquittal, as the case may be." Hence Section 21 applies to cases where the persons who were already convicted for the offences punishable under Section 184, which relates to dangerous driving and the same is in the following terms:- " 184. Driving dangerously - Whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both." 13. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners case has been dealt with under Section 184 of the Act. Even as it is seen in the impugned order, the petitioner has been found fault with and his license is temporarily suspended by the first respondent by virtue of the powers under Section 19 of the Act. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners case has been dealt with under Section 184 of the Act. Even as it is seen in the impugned order, the petitioner has been found fault with and his license is temporarily suspended by the first respondent by virtue of the powers under Section 19 of the Act. Under Section 19 of the Act, the right of a license holder to be given opportunity of being heard is expressly confirmed. Further, it is only after giving such opportunity of being heard, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of license has committed any one of the eight acts contemplated therein, he can disqualify the license holder either for a specified period or can revoke the license. 14. A reading of the show cause notice issued by the first respondent dated 28.01.2010 shows that no one of the individual instances contemplated under Section 19(1) were informed to the petitioner, so as to enable him to give explanation and participate in the process of being heard. The contents of the show cause notice dated 28.01.2010 is as follows:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 15. The above show cause notice makes it clear that apart from non-mentioning of the sub-clause in Section 19(1) of the Act, even the contents of any one of the sub-clause are not mentioned and it is only a show cause notice in simpliciter, as to why the license should not be cancelled without giving any reason or instances for which the licensing authority is entitled under Section 19(1) of the Act. 16. It is no doubt true that the conduct of the petitioner if it is a negligent driving may either come under Section 19(1)(c), if it is a cognizable offence or it may be covered under Section 19(1)(f), if the petitioner has committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, but the issue is that if a person whose driving license is either revoked or suspended is certainly entitled to know on what ground under Section 19(1) of the Act, the licensing authority is proposed to act so as to enable such license holder to utilise the opportunity of being heard in a proper manner. Unfortunately, even in the final impugned order dated 08.02.2010, the first respondent has not chosen to state under what circumstances mentioned under Section 19(1) of the Act, he has arrived at a conclusion for suspending the license. It is relevant to point out that not only that the licensing authority, who exercise his powers for disqualifying the license for a specific period or revoking the license should specify the circumstances mentioned under Section 19(1) of the Act, but also the reasons must be recorded by the licensing authority while passing such orders. 17. The contents of the impugned order are as follows:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED The above impugned order makes it abundantly clear that the first respondent has not chosen to record his reason for suspending the license of the petitioner except stating that he has not accepted the statement of the petitioner that the person, who died in the accident was under the influence of liquor and by his conduct, he voluntarily came and dashed on the vehicle. 18. While exercising the statutory powers and when the statute limits the powers of the authorities to exercise the same under specified circumstances, the said specified circumstances are expected to be revealed in the reasons to be recorded while final orders are passed. 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the statement submitted by the petitioner on 02.02.2010 has been taken into consideration by the first respondent before passing impugned order and that is all necessary within the meaning of the opportunity of being heard has no meaning. It is repeatedly held by the judicial forum that the principles of natural justice is not empty formality especially in cases where valuable right of the petitioner as such to be taken away by exercising statutory powers. Even in cases, where the principles of natural justice are not expressly explained in the statute, the same is presumed to be inbuilt in any statute. However, in the present case, as said in the opening words of Section 19 (1) that "if a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard", such principles of natural justice has not been followed by the first respondent. However, in the present case, as said in the opening words of Section 19 (1) that "if a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard", such principles of natural justice has not been followed by the first respondent. In the absence of any proper reason stated in the show cause notice dated 28.01.2010, where such show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 10.02.2010 after the impugned order came to be passed or the fact that the petitioner has voluntarily submitted his explanation on 02.02.2010 based on such show cause notice, does not confirm the requirement of Section 19(1) of the Act. Inasmuch as the show cause notice has not explained under which clause of Section 19(1) action was sought to be taken against the petitioner, unless such reason is expressly stated in the show cause notice, it is certainly not possible for the petitioner to give proper explanation. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02.02.2010, which has been considered and therefore, it is treated to be in conformity of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. 20. The reliance placed by the learned Government Advocate on the judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in V.Seetharaman Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Madurai reported in (2008) 7 MLJ 296 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. That was a case, where a person who was convicted under Section 304(a) of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by negligence contended that the same cannot be equated to using of motor vehicle in the commission of cognizable offence under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act and it was in that context, the Division Bench has held that invoking of Section 19(1)(c) for suspending the license cannot be said to be invalid. The portion of the judgment which is relevant for the purpose of dealing with the issue in the present case is as follows:- " 10. The power to revoke the licence is granted to the authority with a view to prevent a person unworthy of driving a vehicle from driving temporarily or even permanently. The portion of the judgment which is relevant for the purpose of dealing with the issue in the present case is as follows:- " 10. The power to revoke the licence is granted to the authority with a view to prevent a person unworthy of driving a vehicle from driving temporarily or even permanently. If the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, even a person, who drives a vehicle negligently and recklessly and causes death, will continue to drive the vehicle in future with impunity with the existing licence. Such interpretation would give rice to starting consequences and defeat the very purpose of incorporating Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not acceptable." 21. There is absolutely no quarrel over the said proposition that the power of the licensing authority to revoke the license to prevent a unworthy person from driving the vehicle is always kept intact in law, but, that is different from the facts of the present case, wherein, the conclusion has been arrived at without even giving opportunity as required under Section 19(1) of the Act to the license holder and without fixing his responsibility under any of the sub-clause of the Section 19(1) of the Act, and was disqualified. 22. The show cause notice issued should be in the form of a specified charge which alone would enable a license holder to give proper explanation and when once after following the principles of natural justice, the authorities comes to a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be interfered merely on the ground of non-quoting of specific provision of law. As stated above, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the first respondent apart from non-quoting any of the specific provision of the Act has not even stated the grounds on which the proposal to cancel the license was sought to be made. In fact, in the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court rendered in P.Sethuram Vs. In fact, in the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court rendered in P.Sethuram Vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Dindigul reported in 2010 Writ Law Reporter 100 by V.Ramasubramanian, J. and D.Hariparanthaman, J. has taken a stand that either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order, it must be revealed that the license holder has committed any one of the acts contemplated in (a) to (h) of Section 19(1) of the Act and held that in the absence of specific allegation, it cannot be said that the order is passed with due application of mind. The paragraphs which are relevant for consideration for the issue in the present case are as follows:- " 10. Apart from the above, there is no allegation, either in the notice or in the order impugned in the writ petition, that the appellant is a habitual criminal or habitual drunkard, so as to attract Clause (a) of Section 19(1) of the Act. Similarly, neither the show cause notice nor the order impugned in the writ petition, imputes the appellant 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 appellant was guilty of rash and negligent driving, the impugned order does not indicate the category in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19(1), under which the case of the appellant would fall. 11. The respondent has, in the impugned order, preconcluded the issue that the appellant 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." 23. The conduct of the petitioner may be attracted either under Section 19(1)(c) or (f) of the Act. 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." 23. The conduct of the petitioner may be attracted either under Section 19(1)(c) or (f) of the Act. Unless and until, the petitioner is found to have committed any act under Section 19(1) of the Act and after giving opportunity of being heard, it is not possible to accept the contention that the act of the petitioner should speak of itself so as to enable the licensing authority to suspend the license. 24. In such view of the law, looking at any angle, I am not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the first respondent is not only in violation of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also against the principles of natural justice. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.