Sajith B S vs Joint Regional Transport Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 13917 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sajith B S vs Joint Regional Transport Officer on 28 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 19032 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SAJITH B.S.,
         AGED 34 YEARS,
         S/O SADANANDAN,
         BHAGAVATHY VELI CMC 15 CHERTHALA P.O.,
         CHERTHLA TALUK,
         ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688524

         BY ADVS.
         DILEEP D BHAT
         K.P.ARUN (CHERTHALA)
         SUCHITHRA K.R.
         ARUN E.A.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
         OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
         TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
         GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SRTO,
         CHERTHALA ZONE,
         ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
         KERALA, PIN - 688003
    2    THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
         MARARIKKULAM POLICE STATION,
         ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688523

         BY ADV. SRI.BINOY DAVIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP         FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME         DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.19032/2024
                               :2:




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024

The petitioner herein is having valid driving

licence No.KL-32 20140006846 issued on 28.08.2014. The

petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.189 of

2024 of Mararikulam Police Station, Alappuzha District and

is alleged to have committed offences punishable under

Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued a show

cause notice to the petitioner asking him to explain why his

Driving License should not be suspended for a period not

less than three months. The petitioner herein appeared in

person and submitted his detailed reply on 15.04.2024.

The petitioner is innocent in the above crime and is

apprehending suspension of licence without the reply being

considered. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader

representing the respondents.

4. From the pleadings, I find that to Ext.P2 show

cause notice involving proposal for suspension of

petitioner's Diving Licence, the petitioner has submitted

Ext.P3 objection. In the facts of the case, it would suffice

that the 1st respondent considers Ext.P3 objection filed by

the petitioner before taking any decision on Ext.P2 show

cause notice.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing

the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 also and pass

appropriate orders pursuant to Ext.P2 show cause notice, if

no such decision is already taken.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19032/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 28/02/2024 OF MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION.

Exhibit P2              TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
                        VIDE FILE NO KL 32/2024/604 DATED
                        03/04/2024   ISSUED    BY    THE   1ST
                        RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3              TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   REPLY   DATED
                        15/04/2024     SUBMITTED    BY     THE

PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.