JUDGMENT : The petitioner is the owner of a motor car bearing registration No.KL-2/AB 9599. He has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice issued by the 4th respondent-Regional Transport Officer. 2. Ext.P1 alleges that, the vehicle in question was found having violated traffic signal and speed limits on several occasions (four). The notice alleges that the user of the vehicle is a threat for pedestrians and other users of the road. Ext.P1 further calls for production of the driving licence of the person who drove the vehicle within three days in terms of Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Ext.P1 further cautioned the petitioner that, if the driving licence as called for is not produced within the time, the petitioner's driving licence and also the registration of the vehicle will be cancelled. 3. The writ petition contains various narratives/ personal allegations against the 4th respondent. He has also been impleaded in his personal capacity as the 5th respondent. For the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition I do not think it necessary to go into the factual details since, Ext.P1, on the face of it, is unsustainable for reasons more than one. 4. Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act only enables to call for information of the driver, including his licence details, which could by reasonable diligence be ascertained by the owner of the vehicle. There is no provision to call for production of licence of the registered owner. Calling upon the petitioner to produce the driving licence of the person who had driven the vehicle at the time of the alleged violations, is evidently beyond authority. 5. Secondly, the warning in Ext.P1 that in the event of non-production of the licence as demanded, the registration of the petitioner's vehicle and his driving licence will be cancelled, is without any sanction of law. Section 133 does not authorise such a course. 6. All these apart, Ext.P1 does not give any details of the alleged violations except for a mere statement that there has been violations on four occasions. The time, place and date are conspicuously absent. The petitioner purchased the vehicle only in February, 2015. Section 133 does not authorise such a course. 6. All these apart, Ext.P1 does not give any details of the alleged violations except for a mere statement that there has been violations on four occasions. The time, place and date are conspicuously absent. The petitioner purchased the vehicle only in February, 2015. The check report details in respect of the vehicle, made available by the petitioner, for the period from 04.04.2013 to 30.03.2018 reveals that, after the purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner there has been only one offence detected and that too of speed violation. All the other occurred much prior to the purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner. To sum up, Ext.P1 only deserves to be quashed. 7. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P1 notice dated 25.07.2018 is quashed. While clarifying that I have not considered the merits or otherwise of the other reliefs sought for in the writ petition, the same are left open to be agitated before appropriate forum if the petitioner so chooses.