Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 30.12.2011, and the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 19.10.2011. The petitioner had also prayed for a direction to the second respondent to return the original driving licence, bearing No.TN 02200-80000755 to the petitioner. 3. It had been stated that the petitioner, who has a valid driving licence, was driving the Ford Fiesta Car bearing registration No.T.N.02-AB9336, owned by his father, on 31.7.2011. While so, a motor cycle, bearing registration No.TN.09-BD-7048, driven by a person with a pillion rider, had dashed against the car, at high speed, resulting in an accident, due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle. Latter, the person, who was driving the motor cycle, had died and the pillion rider had sustained injuries. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner had gone to Abiramapuram police station to lodge a complaint. The complaint, dated 2.8.2011, had been received by the third respondent police, who had also taken the original driving licence of the petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent, without submitting the driving licence of the petitioner, before the Judicial Magistrate concerned, had given it to the second respondent, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On 19.8.2011, the second respondent had asked the petitioner to submit his explanation. A detailed explanation, dated 26.8.2011, had been sent by the petitioner. However, the second respondent had passed an order, dated 19.10.2011, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner suspending the driving licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, from 19.10.2011 to 18.4.2012. 4. It had been stated that, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, dated 5.11.2011, to the first respondent, along with the necessary enclosures. The first respondent, by his order, dated 30.12.2011, had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, without considering the detailed reasons given by the petitioner and the grounds raised in the appeal. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The first respondent, by his order, dated 30.12.2011, had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, without considering the detailed reasons given by the petitioner and the grounds raised in the appeal. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the second respondent had suspended the driving licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, with effect from 19.10.2011, without following the procedures established by the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the second respondent had failed to consider the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner before passing the impugned order, dated 19.10.2011. No personal hearing had been given to the petitioner before his driving licence had been suspended. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the third respondent police, who had taken the driving licence from the petitioner, ought to have submitted the same before the competent court of law, as per Section 206(2) of the Act. However, he had submitted the driving licence of the petitioner to the second respondent, illegally. Further, no proper reasons had been given, either by the second respondent, in his proceedings, dated 19.10.2011, or in the order of the first respondent, dated 30.12.2011. The first and the second respondents had not considered the claim made by the petitioner that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the appellate authority had not considered all the grounds, while confirming the order passed by the second respondent, suspending the driving licence of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent and the order of the first respondent, confirming the same, are contrary to law and therefore, they are liable to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 9.1. In P.SETHURAM Vs. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, DINDIGUL, 2009 (2) TN MAC 252 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court had held as follows: "8. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 9.1. In P.SETHURAM Vs. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, DINDIGUL, 2009 (2) TN MAC 252 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court had held as follows: "8. A bare reading of Section 19(1) shows that the licensing authorityhas the 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 Subsection (1) of Section 19 arises. Moreover, the power under Section 19(1) can be invoked only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the holder of the licence and for reasons to be recorded in writing. 9. But in the case on hand, the licence of the appellant was impounded or retained by the police immediately after the accident. Thereafter, the respondent issued the show cause notice under Section 19(1) of the Act, after getting a report from the police. Therefore the impounding of the licence has actually preceded the issue of show cause notice. 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, pre concluded 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. 11. The respondent has, in the impugned order, pre concluded 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." 9.2. In S.PALANIKUMAR Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (MADURAI SOUTH) (2011 (1) CTC 711), this Court had held as follows: "10. This Court has held in various judgments that without initiating proceedings against a person under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the Licensing Authority has no power to retain or impound the driving license and the act of the licensing authority in retaining the driving license is illegal. 11. In this case also, admittedly no action has been taken against the petitioner by the respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Nevertheless, the respondent is retaining the driving license of the petitioner, which action has been deprecated by this Court in various judgments. 12. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to return the driving license of the petitioner immediately on production of a copy of this order and the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for violation of the Motor Vehicles Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs." 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the suspension of the driving licence of the petitioner, by the second respondent, by his impugned order, dated 19.10.2011, is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 11. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the second respondent stating that the impugned orders passed by the first and the second respondents are valid and sustainable in the eye of law. The petitioner had driven the vehicle bearing registration No.T.N.02-AB9336, in a rash and negligent manner and had caused an accident, on 31.7.2011, resulting the death of one Arumugam who was riding the motor cycle. On receipt of the report, the Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation, Adyar and Mylapore Range, Sastri Nagar, Chennai, had registered a first information report and had made the necessary enquiries. On receipt of the report, the Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation, Adyar and Mylapore Range, Sastri Nagar, Chennai, had registered a first information report and had made the necessary enquiries. 12. It has also been stated that, based on the police report, the Joint Commissioner, (Road Safety), Chepauk, had directed the office of the second respondent to take necessary action against the driver of the vehicle, which was involved in a fatal accident, on 31.7.2011. Based on the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioner of Police Traffic Zone, Kilpauk, Chennai, and the Joint Transport Commissioner (Road Safety) Chennai, necessary steps had been taken, by issuing a show cause notice to the driver of the vehicle. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Therefore, after a careful examination of the available records, the licence of the petitioner had been suspended, from 19.10.2011 to 18.4.2012, in accordance with Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 13. It has also been stated that the second respondent had issued the impugned order suspending the licence of the petitioner, after issuing a show cause notice to him and on considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order issued by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 19.10.2011,is contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. The said order passed by the second respondent had also been confirmed by an order dated, 30.12.2011, passed by the fist respondent. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had also submitted that the authorities relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing, as per the relevant provisions of law. Only thereafter, the impugned orders had been passed, suspending the licence of the petitioner, for his rash and negligent driving, and for causing the fatal accident, on 31.7.2011. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 15. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, and in view of the decisions cited supra, it is seen that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 19.10.2011, suspending the licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, in accordance with Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, and in view of the decisions cited supra, it is seen that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 19.10.2011, suspending the licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, in accordance with Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 16. It is also noted, from the available records, that a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner and he had been given an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner had also submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice issued by the second respondent. However, as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 19.10.2011, suspending the licence of the petitioner. The said order had also been confirmed by the first respondent, by his order, dated 30.12.2011, and the appeal filed by the petitioner had been rightly rejected. 17. It is not in dispute that the second respondent has the authority and the power to suspend the driving licence of a person, as per Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 19.10.2011, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, and after giving him an opportunity of hearing to him. Since, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, suspending the licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, with effect from 19.10.2011. Thereafter, the first respondent had confirmed the order passed by the second respondent, by his order, dated 19.10.2011. As such, the contentions raised by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.