Order : (Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.) 1. Grievance of the petitioner is to the endorsement made in the order dated 28/01/2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Transport Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, whereby his driving license has been shown to be suspended vide order dated 10/07/2019 retrospectively with effect from 16/04/2019 upto 24/07/2019, for a period of three months. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the driver by profession having a valid driving license No.CG07 20110028414, which was issued in his favour on 11/11/2011 by the Regional Transport Officer, Durg (In short “RTO, Durg”) and is valid upto 09/11/2031, but an endorsement made in the order impugned dated 28/01/2020 (Annexure P-1) would show that it was suspended for a period of three months commencing with effect from 16/04/2019 upto 24/07/2019 vide order dated 10/07/2019. Further of his contention is that on 30/06/2019, when he was driving a “Jeep Campas” bearing Registration No.CG/07/BL/8844 owned and insured with one Ravi Shankar Mishra, it was met with an accident, owing to which, he (Ravishankar Mishra) approached the Respondent No.5–Branch Manager, Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited for the insurance claim, but, it was denied through e-mail dated 18/12/2019 (Annexure P/4) on the ground that his (Petitioner’s) driving license was not in force during the said period, as it was suspended with effect from 16/04/2019 upto 24/07/2019. 3. It is pleaded further that upon receiving the said information from his owner, the petitioner moved an application on 23/12/2019 (Annexure P-5) before the RTO, Durg for obtaining the certified copies of the alleged suspension order and the other relevant documents, but, the said authority vide its letter dated 27/12/2019 (Annexure P/6) informed that his alleged driving license was suspended by the Regional Transport Officer, Raipur (In short “RTO, Raipur”); he then immediately approached the said authority for the same, but, it was informed vide its letter dated 15.01.2020 (Annexure P/8) that no such document or order is available in the office. Faced upon such a situation, he was, therefore, constrained to apply for the extract of his driving license and then only, he came to know that it was suspended vide order dated 10/07/2019 retrospectively with effect from 16/04/2019 upto 24/07/2019. 4. Faced upon such a situation, he was, therefore, constrained to apply for the extract of his driving license and then only, he came to know that it was suspended vide order dated 10/07/2019 retrospectively with effect from 16/04/2019 upto 24/07/2019. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither aware of the alleged suspension order of his driving license, nor was given any opportunity of hearing as required under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short “the Act, 1988”), as such, the alleged suspension order made on 10/07/2019, as endorsed in the order impugned dated 28/01/2020 (Annexure P/1) suspending his driving license retrospectively with effect from 16/04/2019 upto 24/07/2019, is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/State, based upon the return, submits that since the petitioner had driving the alleged vehicle in violation of the provisions prescribed under Sections 184, 119 and 177 of the Act, 1988, in the year 2018, therefore, the same has been suspended in view of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for the purpose of Road Safety. 6. What is, therefore, reflected from the contentions made by the parties and the pleas raised, that the driving license bearing No.CG07 20110028414, was admittedly issued to the petitioner on 11/11/2011 and is valid up to 09/11/2031, but, it was found to be suspended vide order dated 10.07.2019 retrospectively with effect from 16/04/2019 upto 24/07/2019 for the period of three months, as reflected from the endorsement made in the order impugned, dated 28/01/2020 (Annexure P/1). The said fact was revealed to the petitioner when the insurance claim made by his owner, namely Ravi Shankar Mishra, was refused by the Respondent No.5-Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited through e-mail intimation made on 18/12/2019, owing to suspension of his driving license. It appears further that upon receiving the said fact from his owner, the petitioner moved an application on 23/12/2019 (Annexure P/5) before the Respondent No.2-RTO, Durg, who had issued the alleged driving license, for obtaining the certified copies of the alleged suspension order and the other relevant documents, but has, however, informed him vide its letter dated 27/12/2019 (Annexure P-6) that his alleged driving license has been suspended by the RTO, Raipur. It appears further that acting upon the said information (Annexure P-6), the petitioner for the very said purpose, approached the Respondent No.3–RTO, Raipur on 30/12/2019 (Annexure P-7), but it was informed by the said Authority vide its letter dated 15/01/2020 (Annexure P-8), that no such document is available in the office. It, thus, appears that despite several efforts being made by the Petitioner for obtaining the copy of the alleged suspension order dated 10/07/2019, but the same was, however, not provided to him and instead, he was directed to approach one or the other Authorities for the same. 7. Be that as it may, it appears that the alleged driving license of the petitioner has been suspended without providing him the opportunity of hearing as required under Section 19 of the Act, 1988. The said provision is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under :- “19. 7. Be that as it may, it appears that the alleged driving license of the petitioner has been suspended without providing him the opportunity of hearing as required under Section 19 of the Act, 1988. The said provision is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under :- “19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving license or revoke such license .---(1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving license an opportunity of being heard, that he— (a)is a habitual criminal or 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 license or a license 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 the 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 sub-section (3) of section 22; or (h)being a person under the age of eighteen years who has been granted a learner’s license or a driving license with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the holder of the license 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 license to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the license; or (ii) revoke any such license. [(1-A) Where a licence has been forwarded to the licensing authority under sub-section(4) of section 206, the licensing authority, if satisfied after giving the holder of the driving licence an opportunity of being heard, may either discharge the holder of a driving license or, it may for detailed reasons recorded in writing, make an order disqualifying such person from holding or obtaining any licence to drive all or any class or description of vehicles specified in the licence--- (a) for a first offence, for a period of three months; (b) for a second or subsequent offence, with revocation of the driving licence of such person : Provided that where a driving licence is revoked under this section, the name of the holder of such driving licence may be placed in the public domain in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.] 2. …….. xxx ……. xxxx …….. 3. …….. xxx ……. xxxx ……..” 8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that it is obligatory on the part of Authorities concerned to provide an opportunity of hearing to him before passing the order as such. However, without following the said procedure and even without providing the copy of the same, the alleged driving license has been suspended vide order dated 10.07.2019. In view of such circumstances, it cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law. The alleged suspension order made on 10.07.2019 as endorsed in the order impugned, dated 28/01/2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Transport Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, is liable to be and is, thus, quashed. 9. Before parting with the matter, what cannot be ignored at this juncture, is that the petitioner’s driving license was not found to be suspended when the alleged accident had taken place on 30.06.2019 around 02.30 PM near the Village Manikpur, Mandla Road, Shahpura (Madhya Pradesh) and, rather was it found to be suspended thereafter only vide order dated 10.07.2019 and, that too, while giving its effect retrospectively with effect from 16/04/2019 upto 24/07/2019. Why the alleged suspension order was not issued prior to the occurrence of the alleged accident, occurred on 30.06.2019, if any violation of the Act, 1988, as alleged was committed by the petitioner and, why it was issued only thereafter on 10/07/2019 as revealed from the endorsement made in the order impugned dated 28/01/2020 (Annexure P/1), and, why the copy of the same has not been provided to him though several efforts were made by him. Neither any explanation to this effect has been made, nor even copy of the alleged suspension order was provided to the petitioner by any of the competent respondent authorities. This fact cannot be ignored, particularly when it appears, prima facie, that the concerned respondents have either manipulated the alleged document/order (Annexure P/1) while endorsing as such, or has done something wrong in order to deprive the alleged insurance claim made by the said owner namely, Ravi Shankar Mishra. A thorough inquiry is, therefore, needed to be made by the Secretary, Transport Department of State of Chhattisgarh, in order to ascertain the alleged fact, as to how it was so happened. Ordered accordingly. 10. Registry is directed to place all the relevant documents to the Secretary, Transport Department of State of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (CG) forthwith, who in turn, shall communicate the Enquiry Report and/or the action taken, if any against the erring officers, in this regard, within the stipulated period of six months, from the date of receiving the copy of this order, failing which, an appropriate action shall be taken. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed.