S.G.Lokesh Kumar v. Appellate – Authority and joint commissioner of Transport Chennai South Range & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.2.2012 CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.2712 of 2012S.G.Lokesh Kumar ... petitionerVs.1. Appellate – Authority and joint commissioner of Transport Chennai South Range, Chennai – 600 0832. Licensing Authority and Regional Transport Officer Chennai South East Chennai – 600 0283. The Inspector of Police J-2, Adayar Traffic Investigation Shastri Nagar Police Station Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the firstrespondent in his letter No.A3/4804/2011, dated 30.12.2011, and orderof the second respondent in his proceedings – Order No.B2/27885/2011dated 19.10.2011 quash the same and to direct the second respondentto forthwith return the original driving licence bearing No.TN 02200-80000755 to the petitioner herein. For petitioner : Mr.V.Raghupathi For respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Additional Government Pleader (W)O R D E RHeard the learned counsels appearing for both sides. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugnedletter of the first respondent, dated 30.12.2011, and the proceedingsof the second respondent, dated 19.10.2011. The petitioner had alsoprayed for a direction to the second respondent to return the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ original driving licence, bearing No.TN 02200-80000755 to thepetitioner. 3. It had been stated that the petitioner, who has a validdriving licence, was driving the Ford Fiesta Car bearing registrationNo.T.N.02-AB9336, owned by his father, on 31.7.2011. While so, amotor cycle, bearing registration No.TN.09-BD-7048, driven by aperson with a pillion rider, had dashed against the car, at highspeed, resulting in an accident, due to the rash and negligent ridingof the motor cycle. Latter, the person, who was driving the motorcycle, had died and the pillion rider had sustained injuries.Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner had gone toAbiramapuram police station to lodge a complaint. The complaint,dated 2.8.2011, had been received by the third respondent police, whohad also taken the original driving licence of the petitioner.Thereafter, the third respondent, without submitting the drivinglicence of the petitioner, before the Judicial Magistrate concerned,had given it to the second respondent, contrary to the provisions ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On 19.8.2011, the second respondent hadasked the petitioner to submit his explanation. A detailedexplanation, 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 petitionersuspending the driving licence of the petitioner, for a period of sixmonths, from 19.10.2011 to 18.4.2012. 4. It had been stated that, aggrieved by the said order, thepetitioner had preferred an appeal, dated 5.11.2011, to the firstrespondent, along with the necessary enclosures. The firstrespondent, by his order, dated 30.12.2011, had rejected the appealfiled by the petitioner, without considering the detailed reasonsgiven by the petitioner and the grounds raised in the appeal. In suchcircumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petitionbefore this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submittedthat the second respondent had suspended the driving licence of thepetitioner, for a period of six months, with effect from 19.10.2011,without following the procedures established by the relevantprovisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had furthersubmitted that the second respondent had failed to consider thedetailed explanation submitted by the petitioner before passing theimpugned order, dated 19.10.2011. No personal hearing had been givento the petitioner before his driving licence had been suspended. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hadfurther submitted that the third respondent police, who had taken thedriving licence from the petitioner, ought to have submitted the samebefore the competent court of law, as per Section 206(2) of the Act.However, he had submitted the driving licence of the petitioner tothe second respondent, illegally. Further, no proper reasons had beengiven, either by the second respondent, in his proceedings, dated19.10.2011, or in the order of the first respondent, dated30.12.2011. The first and the second respondents had not consideredthe claim made by the petitioner that the accident had taken placedue to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had furthersubmitted that the appellate authority had not considered all thegrounds, while confirming the order passed by the second respondent,suspending the driving licence of the petitioner. Therefore, theimpugned proceedings of the second respondent and the order of thefirst respondent, confirming the same, are contrary to law andtherefore, they are liable to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had alsorelied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:9.1. In P.SETHURAM Vs. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY, THE REGIONALTRANSPORT 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 licensingauthority has the power to revoke any licence or disqualify aperson for a specified period from holding or obtaining a drivinglicence, if any of the contingencies prescribed in Clauses (a) to(h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 arises. Moreover, the powerunder Section 19(1) can be invoked only after giving anopportunity of being heard to the holder of the licence and forreasons to be recorded in writing. 9. But in the case on hand, the licence of the appellant wasimpounded or retained by the police immediately after theaccident. Thereafter, the respondent issued the show cause noticeunder Section 19(1) of the Act, after getting a report from thepolice. Therefore the impounding of the licence has actuallypreceded the issue of show cause notice. 10. Apart from the above, there is no allegation, either inthe notice or in the order impugned in the writ petition, thatthe appellant is a habitual criminal or habitual drunkard, so as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to attract Clause (a) of Section 19(1) of the Act. Similarly,neither the show cause notice nor the order impugned in the writpetition, imputes the appellant with any of the ingredientsnecessary under Clauses (b) to (h) of Sub Section (1) of Section19 of the Act. Except stating that as per the report of theInspector of Police, the appellant was guilty of rash andnegligent driving, the impugned order does not indicate thecategory in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19(1), under which thecase of the appellant would fall. 11. The respondent has, in the impugned order, pre concludedthe issue that the appellant is guilty of rash and negligentdriving, even before the Criminal Court or the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal went into the issue. Even to invoke Section 19(1)(c), it is necessary to show that the Motor Vehicle is used inthe commission of a cognizable offence. Without making a specificaverment regarding the same, the order suspending the drivinglicence cannot be taken to be passed after due application ofmind."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 thatwithout initiating proceedings against a person under theprovisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the Licensing Authorityhas no power to retain or impound the driving license andthe act of the licensing authority in retaining the drivinglicense is illegal.11. In this case also, admittedly no action has beentaken against the petitioner by the respondent in accordancewith the provisions of the Act. Nevertheless, the respondentis retaining the driving license of the petitioner, whichaction has been deprecated by this Court in variousjudgments.12. In view of the above, the respondent is directedto return the driving license of the petitioner immediatelyon production of a copy of this order and the respondent isat liberty to proceed against the petitioner for violationof the Motor Vehicles Act in accordance with law.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs." 10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hadsubmitted that the suspension of the driving licence of thepetitioner, by the second respondent, by his impugned order, dated19.10.2011, is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, it is liable tobe set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the secondrespondent stating that the impugned orders passed by the first andthe 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, on31.7.2011, resulting the death of one Arumugam who was riding themotor cycle. On receipt of the report, the Inspector of PoliceTraffic Investigation, Adyar and Mylapore Range, Sastri Nagar,Chennai, had registered a first information report and had made thenecessary enquiries. 12. It has also been stated that, based on the police report,the Joint Commissioner, (Road Safety), Chepauk, had directed theoffice of the second respondent to take necessary action against thedriver of the vehicle, which was involved in a fatal accident, on31.7.2011. Based on the recommendations of the Assistant Commissionerof Police Traffic Zone, Kilpauk, Chennai, and the Joint TransportCommissioner (Road Safety) Chennai, necessary steps had been taken,by issuing a show cause notice to the driver of the vehicle. Theexplanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory.Therefore, after a careful examination of the available records, thelicence of the petitioner had been suspended, from 19.10.2011 to18.4.2012, in accordance with Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. 13. It has also been stated that the second respondent hadissued the impugned order suspending the licence of the petitioner,after issuing a show cause notice to him and on considering theexplanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be saidthat the impugned order issued by the proceedings of the secondrespondent, dated 19.10.2011,is contrary to law and the principles ofnatural justice. The said order passed by the second respondent hadalso been confirmed by an order dated, 30.12.2011, passed by the fistrespondent. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had alsosubmitted that the authorities relied on by the petitioner are notapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thepetitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing, as per therelevant provisions of law. Only thereafter, the impugned orders hadbeen passed, suspending the licence of the petitioner, for his rashand negligent driving, and for causing the fatal accident, on31.7.2011. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner isdevoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15.In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the parties concerned, and in view of the decisionscited supra, it is seen that the second respondent had passed theimpugned order, dated 19.10.2011, suspending the licence of thepetitioner, for a period of six months, in accordance with Section 19of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 16. It is also noted, from the available records, that a showcause notice had been issued to the petitioner and he had been givenan opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner had also submitteda detailed explanation to the show cause notice issued by the secondrespondent. However, as the explanation submitted by the petitionerwas not satisfactory, the second respondent had passed the impugnedorder, dated 19.10.2011, suspending the licence of the petitioner.The said order had also been confirmed by the first respondent, byhis order, dated 30.12.2011, and the appeal filed by the petitionerhad been rightly rejected. 17. It is not in dispute that the second respondent has theauthority and the power to suspend the driving licence of a person,as per Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, thesecond respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 19.10.2011,after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, and after givinghim an opportunity of hearing to him. Since, the explanationsubmitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the secondrespondent had passed the impugned order, suspending the licence ofthe petitioner, for a period of six months, with effect from19.10.2011. Thereafter, the first respondent had confirmed the orderpassed by the second respondent, by his order, dated 19.10.2011. Assuch, the contentions raised by the petitioner, in the present writpetition, cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the writ petition filedby the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed.No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar //True Copy// Sub.Asst.RegistrarlanTo:1. Appellate – Authority and joint commissioner of Transport Chennai South Range, Chennai – 600 083 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Licensing Authority and Regional Transport Officer Chennai South East Chennai – 600 0283. The Inspector of Police J-2, Adayar Traffic Investigation Shastri Nagar Police Station Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.1 cc to Mr. V.Raghupathi, Advocate, Sr.No.108931 cc To Government Pleader, SR.No.11222Writ Petition No.2712 of 2012ces(co)pmk.14.3.2012