JUDGMENT :- 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the respondent, dated 30.11.2010, stating that it is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner had also prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to hand over the driving licence bearing Driving Licence No.TN 41-19980005524 to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Driver in the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, (Coimbatore), Palani Branch. He had been discharging his duties, without any blemish. While he was driving the bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-1785, in the Palani to Coimbatore Route, on 12.5.2010, the vehicle had met with an accident near Somangalampudur, on Udumalpet-Pollachi Road. The accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Indica Car, which was involved in the accident. Thereafter, a First Information Report had been registered, on 12.5.2010, under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to which the licence of the petitioner had been seized by the Inspector of Police, Komangalam Police Station and it had been handed over to the respondent, vide letter, dated 19.5.2010. 3. The petitioner has further stated that, by a letter, dated 9.6.2010, he had made a detailed representation to the respondent, explaining that the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and requesting the respondent to return the licence to him. The representation sent by the petitioner had been returned by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Udumalpet, stating that the driving licence of the petitioner had been sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore. While so, the respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, dated 30.11.2010, suspending the licence of the petitioner for a period of three months, from 24.11.2010 to 23.2.2011. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the act of the respondent in suspending the licence of the petitioner by his impugned proceedings, dated 30.11.2010, is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The act of seizure of the driving licence is in violation of Section 19 of the said Act, as it is premature in nature. The act of seizure of the driving licence is in violation of Section 19 of the said Act, as it is premature in nature. The seizure and suspension of the driving licence of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal, as it has been done even before the concerned criminal Court and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had given their findings. 5. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of this Court, reported in P.Sethuram V. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul (2010 Writ L.R. 100) to state that the licence of the petitioner cannot be suspended, without issuing a show cause notice, as provided under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It had also been stated that the respondent therein had pre-concluded the issue by holding that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving, without due application of mind. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the order of the Division Bench relied on by the petitioner would not be applicable to the present case. He had submitted that the licence of the petitioner had been suspended, under 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after the petitioner had been given an opportunity, as provided under the said section. In fact, the petitioner had admitted that he had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the proceedings of the respondent, dated 30.11.2010, is arbitrary and illegal. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had relied on the order of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in V.Seetharaman V. The Regional Transport Officer, Madurai South (2008-3-L.W. 433), wherein it had been held that Section 19(1) (c) would take into account the fact that a cognizable offence had been committed due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The power to suspend and to revoke the licence is vested with the authority concerned, with a view to prevent a person from driving a vehicle, if he is not found fit to do so. 8. The power to suspend and to revoke the licence is vested with the authority concerned, with a view to prevent a person from driving a vehicle, if he is not found fit to do so. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had also relied on the following decisions in support of his contention that the respondent has the authority to suspend the licence, under Section 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even when criminal proceedings are pending adjudication: 1. M. Palanimuthu Vs. The Regional Transport Officer 2. P. Kasinathan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others 3. A. Sekar and others Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur and others 4. R. Ganesan Vs. The Licencing Authority, Regional Transport Officer, Vellore District, Vellore and another The learned counsel had also submitted that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, by way of an appeal, under Clause(3) of Section 19 of the Act. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and in view of the cases cited above, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present petition. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the suspending of the licence, by the respondent, under Section 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been done, without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. 10. In the impugned proceedings of the respondent, it has been stated that he had admitted that he had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Even though it had been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had not admitted the charge that he had driven the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and that the proceedings before the concerned criminal Court is pending adjudication, it cannot be held that the respondent cannot invoke the power under Section 19(1)(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to suspend the licence to the petitioner, temporarily. 11. In view of the decisions cited supra, it is clear that the respondent would be entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner, for the reasons stated in the said provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. In view of the decisions cited supra, it is clear that the respondent would be entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner, for the reasons stated in the said provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, there is no doubt that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him, both in the criminal proceedings before the concerned Court and in the domestic enquiry, if any, to establish that he had not caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving. Since, the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.