Disposed

K.K.Ramesh, v. The Government of India

Madras HC6 Nov 2014WP/28972/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directing amendment of Motor Vehicles Act to impose stricter penalties for drunken driving. Court held legislative amendments are beyond judicial direction but treated the representation as suggestions for concerned authorities to consider.

What did the court decide?

Direction to treat petitioner's representation as suggestions and place result of consideration in pending proceedings.

K.K.Ramesh, Vs The Government of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

W.P.No.28972 of 2014

¶8

K.K.Ramesh .. Petitioner vs 1.The Government of India, Rep. by its Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2.The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Law, New Delhi. 3.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai. 4.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Transport Secretary, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai. 5.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Law Secretary, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai. 6.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 7.The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. .. Respondents (R7 impleaded as per order dated 6.11.2014 and made herein)

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 5 to amend Sections 22 and 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by imposing severe punishment of cancelling the driving license and confiscation of vehicle driven by the person or the person under the influence of drugs, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2014.

¶11

Party-in-person

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi SCGSC, for RR1, 2 and 7 : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, Govt. Pleader for RR 3 to 6

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶14

In view of the averments in the petition, The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, is impleaded as respondent no.7. Memo of parties be accordingly amended.

¶15

2.Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2 and also for newly impleaded respondent no.7. Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, learned Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 3 to 6.

¶16

3.The petitioner seeks to raise the issue of drunken driving and the requirement of amending Sections 22 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for imposition of more severe punishment, for which he has made a representation dated 21.10.2014.

¶17

4.The aforesaid is a legislative exercise and in that sense, no direction can be issued by the Court. However, certainly, the representation of the petitioner can be treated as suggestions for purposes of dealing with the menace of drunken driving, which results in deaths and injuries and the incidence of the same in Tamil Nadu is stated to be one of the highest.

¶18

5.We understand that this issue has been raised in Suo Motu W.P.No.10020 of 2009, taken against The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and 4 others and interim directions were passed on 03.06.2009, reported in (2009) 3 CTC 359. We are informed that those proceedings are still pending.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

6.We, thus, consider it appropriate to issue the following

¶21

directions:

¶22

1. The representation of the petitioner dated 21.10.2014 may be treated as suggestions by the concerned authorities, more specifically by the Ministry of Road Transport, Government of India / respondent no.7 as well as respondents 3, 4 and 6;

¶23

1. If there are any proceedings pending before this court, as indicated above, the result of consideration be placed in those proceedings for a holistic picture.

¶24

6.Writ Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.

¶25

Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 stands closed.

¶26

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS II )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
sra
To
1. The Home Secretary,
The Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
The Government of India,
Ministry of Law, New Delhi.
3. The Home Secretary,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
4.The Transport Secretary,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Secre,
Chennai.
5. The Law Secretary,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

6.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

¶29

7.The Secretary Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi.

¶30

1 cc to Mr.K.K. Ramesh, Advocate, sR. 52824 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 52743 W.P.No.28972 of 2014

¶31

TEJ (CO)
kk 18/11

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.K.Ramesh, v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Ramesh, v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Institute of Technology Vs 1. Union of India Rep. by Its

Vs Indian Institute Oftech.

Dr.G.Muthuveerappan Vs 1) the Chairman, Board of

E.Seshan Vs Lakshminarayan IFS

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Vs Mohan Varghese Chunkath

L.Amudha Vs the State of Tn. Rep.by