Disposed

Reo Paul, v. Union of India

Kerala HC26 Oct 2023WP(C)/21654/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench writ petition impugning a Show Cause Notice under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. Petitioner was a fireman driver involved in a mock drill incident. Court directed the issuing authority to decide the notice after affording personal hearing and considering the departmental enquiry report.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to decide the Show Cause Notice after affording a personal hearing and considering the enquiry report; any adverse order to remain inoperative for 15 days.

Reo Paul, Vs Union of India — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 21654 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

REO PAUL,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O. V. V PAULOSE, VALIYAKATTAYIL HOUSE,
KIZHAKOMBU P. O., KOOTHATTUKKULAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686662.

¶8

BY ADVS.
 SRI. S. RAJEEV
 SRI. V. VINAY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, BHAWAN 1, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001.

¶11

2 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶12

3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, SECOND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682030.

¶13

4 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,MATTANCHERY, CHULLIKKAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682005.

¶14

5 FIRE STATION OFFICER, FIRE STATION OFFICE, KOOTHATTUKKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686662.

¶15

BY ADVS.
 SRI. SHRI. R. PRASANTH KUMAR, CGC
 SMT. H. SUBHALEKSHMI
 SRI. JOBY JOSEPH – GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 21654 OF 2023

¶18

¶19

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No.21654 of 2023

¶21

Dated this the 26^th day of October, 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the Show Cause Notice dated 22.06.2023 in Exhibit P-4 issued to the petitioner by the 4^th respondent under Section 19 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989.

¶24

The petitioner is a Fireman cum Driver at the Koothattukulam Fire Station to drive Fire Engine. The Defence Minister, Mr. Rajnath Singh was to arrive at Nedumbassery Airport on 20.06.2023. a mock drill was conducted by the Home Department of the State Government for taking safety measures on arrival of the Defence Minister. This mock drill was conducted on 20.06.2023 itself, before the arrival of the Defence Minister. It is said that the petitioner was driving the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01-CS-0419 in the mock drill. On 20.06.2023, the trial was started at 12.00 noon after police clearance at various locations. When the petitioner was driving the vehicle accompanying other pilot vehicles in the trial run and reached near Aspirin Wall Company godown, a person with a

¶25

WP(C) NO. 21654 OF 2023

¶26

¶27

pillion rider came on a motorbike bearing registration No.KL 43G 5872 and tried to cross the motor gate of the mock drill. An accident took place and the rider and the pillion rider suffered injuries for which an FIR No.972/2023 came to be registered under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC by the Harbour Crime Police Station. The 4^th respondent has issued notice to the petitioner in Exhibit P-4 for which the petitioner has filed reply.

¶28

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 5^th respondent who is Superior Officer of the petitioner has conducted an enquiry and had submitted a report before the Regional Fire Officer, Ernakulam exonerating the petitioner and real facts have also be stated in the said enquiry report which has been placed on record as Exhibit P-6.

¶29

Considering the aforesaid fact and also taking into account that the petitioner had already filed reply to the Show Cause Notice in Exhibit P-5, the 4^th respondent is directed to take decision on the Show Cause Notice in Exhibit P-4 in accordance with the law. The petitioner should be afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing by the 4^th respondent while adjudicating the Show Cause Notice in Exhibit P-4. The 4^th respondent should also take into

¶30

WP(C) NO. 21654 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

account the report of the 5^th respondent in Exhibit P-6. The petitioner shall be permitted to place on record all the relevant documents in his favour. If, after considering all the materials, evidence as well as hearing the petitioner, some adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of fifteen days.

¶33

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶36

Svn

¶37

WP(C) NO. 21654 OF 2023

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21654/2023

¶40

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶41

`EXHIBIT P1`	`THE TRUE` `THE PETITI`	`COPY OF` `ONER ON`	`THE DRIVING LICENSE ISSUED TO` `24.08.2001`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`THE TRUE` `19.06.2023` `ERNAKULAM`	`COPY OF` `ISSUED`	`THE PROGRAMME ORDER DATED` `BY THE REGIONAL FIRE OFFICE,`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`THE TRUE` `20.06.2023` `POLICE STA`	`COPY OF` `REGIST` `TION`	`THE FIR NO.972/2023 DATED` `ERED BY THE HARBOUR CRIME`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`THE TRUE` `22.06.2023` `RESPONDENT`	`COPY OF` `ISSUED`	`THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED` `TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`THE TRUE` `30.06.2023` `4TH RESPON`	`COPY OF` `MADE B` `DENT`	`THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED` `Y THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`THE TRUE` `SUBMITTED` `REGIONAL F`	`COPY OF` `BY THE` `IRE OFFI`	`THE REPORT DATED 23.06.2023` `5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE` `CER, ERNAKULAM`

Reo Paul, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reo Paul, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvathy K, Vs the Secretary

Arthinkal Village Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.3772, Vs Assistant Commissioner

Muhammed Munees A.K Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Platino Classic Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise

V.P.Hasna Vs the Additional/Joint /Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer

Lazar Robert Vs Corporation of Kochi