JUDGMENT :- 1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ of certiorari in calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the Respondent in his proceedings Sae.Mu.Aa.No.49836-A3-09 dated 21.1.2010 and quash the same. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Respondent dated 21.1.2010 in cancelling the permit of the lorry bearing registration No.T.C.Y.3796 is against law and in violation of the principles of natural justice, since the Petitioner's explanation dated 30.12.2009 has not been discussed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kancheepuram. 3. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Respondent/Regional Transport Officer, Kancheepuram has passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2010 by cryptically mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order that the explanation mentioned in Reference No.6 submitted by the Petitioner is not acceptable. 4. The legal argument projected on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Respondent has passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2010 in a mechanical fashion and further, as a matter of routine, notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner submitted his detailed explanation. Unfortunately, the contents of the explanation submitted by the Petitioner dated 30.12.2009 has not been discussed in the impugned order either in a qualitative or quantitative fashion. To put it shortly, the plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned order, without discussing the contents of the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, is bereft of necessary details. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside to prevent aberration of justice and to safeguard substantial cause of justice. 5. It is to be borne in mind that when the competent Authority passes an order, which is the subject matter in issue, then that order must spell out/specify the reasons as to the conclusion arrived at by the concerned Authority, of course after taking into account all the relevant facts and attendant details encircling the case, more so mentioning necessary contents or gist of the contents found in the explanation submitted by the Petitioner. 6. 6. Be that as it may, as far as the present case is concerned, the impugned order passed by the Respondent dated 21.1.2010 merely mentions that the explanation submitted by the Petitioner has been found not acceptable and resultantly, the order of the cancelling the permit as per Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been passed in respect of the lorry bearing registration No.TCY 3796. 7. Inasmuch as the impugned order dated 21.1.2010 has been passed by the Respondent without taking into account the relevant and necessary details as mentioned in the explanationdated 30.12.2009 submitted by the Petitioner, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the impugned order passed without referring to the contents of the explanation in limine necessarily suffers from material irregularity and patent illegality in the eye of law. As such, this Court, on this simple ground alone, is perforced to interfere with the impugned order dated 21.1.2010 in proceedings Sae.Mu.Aa.No.49836-A3-09 passed by the Respondent and sets aside the same in the interest of justice. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the impugned order dt.21.1.2010 in proceedings Sae.Mu.Aa.No.49836-A3-09 passed by the Respondent is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this writ petition. The Respondent is directed to consider the explanation of the Petitioner dated 30.12.2009 and to pass a fresh order in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, of course after providing adequate opportunity to the Petitioner. It is made clear that it is open to the Petitioner to raise all factual and legal pleas before the Respondent, in any event, the Respondent is directed to pass a speaking and a reasoned order on merits in a fair and dispassionate manner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.