Allowed

M.Iyyasamy v. The Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC24 Apr 2017WP/10048/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Regional Transport Officer's order suspending the petitioner's driving license due to a pending criminal case under Section 304-A IPC arising from an accident. Relying on precedents that require a conviction or finding of guilt rather than mere registration, and rejecting the alternative remedy argument, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the suspension orde

What did the court decide?

The impugned order suspending the petitioner's driving license was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be returned his driving license forthwith.

M.Iyyasamy Vs The Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.10048 of 2017

¶6

M. Iyyasamy ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore (West) Coimbatore District. 2. The Inspector of Police Chettipalayam Police Station Chettipalayam, Coimbatore District ... Respondents

¶8

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records of the order of the first respondent made in Na.Ka. No.1310/,3/2017, dated 28.02.2017 for suspending the Petitioner's Driving Licence for a period from 15.02.2017 to 14.08.2017 and to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent herein to return the petitioner's Driving Licence bearing DL No.TN-2920020000584 after removing the endorsement suspended forthwith.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Ganesan For Respondent : Mr.M.Elumalai Government Advocate

¶10

Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.02.2017 temporarily suspending the petitioner's driving license from 15.02.2017 to 14.08.2017, on the reason that the petitioner, while driving a bus on 09.01.2017 caused an accident which has resulted in loss of life of a passenger in the said bus.

¶12

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

¶13

It is stated that a criminal case in Crime No.12/2017 under sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered against the petitioner and the same is still pending. The respondent seized the driving license of the petitioner and consequently, the present impugned order is passed, after issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that suspending the petitioner's driving license is erroneous, especially, when the criminal case filed against the petitioner is pending and not ended against him. He further submitted that the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice was not considered by the respondent in a proper perspective manner. Learned counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 (P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Dindigul) and a single Judge decision made in W.P.No.16958/2013 dated 01.07.2013 reported in 2013 Writ L.R.843 (S.Duraivelu vs. The Regional Transport Officer, West Thambaram, Chennai & 2 others).

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner can avail the alternative remedy of filing appeal.

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

It is not in dispute that the petitioner's license was suspended for the period commencing from 15.02.2017 to 14.08.2017. It is also not in dispute that the criminal case filed against the petitioner is still pending and has not reached its finality. Similar question has arisen before the Division Bench of this Court as to whether the Licensing Authority can suspend the license merely because the criminal case was registered against the driver in respect of a road traffic accident. The Division Bench, while considering the said issue and also considering the objection that an appeal has to be filed against the said order has found in paragraph No.11 as follows:

¶18

The respondent has, in the impugned order, preconcluded the issue that the appellant is guilty of rash and negligent driving, even before the Criminal Court or the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal went into the issue. Even to invoke Section 19(1)(c), it is necessary to show that the Motor vehicle is used in the commission of a cognizable offence. Without making a specific averment regarding the same, the order suspending the driving licence cannot be

¶19

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

¶20

taken to be passed after due application of mind.

¶21

While considering the objection with regard to the availability of alternative remedy of appeal is concerned, the Division Bench has rejected such contention. The very same decision was followed by the learned single Judge of this Court reported in 2013 Writ L.R.843 (S.Duraivelu vs. The Regional Transport Officer, West Thambaram, Chennai & 2 others) wherein the learned Judge has observed in paragraph No.4 as follows:

¶22

The license of the petitioner was suspended solely on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 304-A IPC. The criminal case is still pending. The factum of involvement of the petitioner in an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code would not give any jurisdiction to the respondent to suspend the license. Therefor, I am of the view that the respondent was not justified in suspending the license of the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to return the driving license of the petitioner forthwith. However, it shall not preclude the 1st respondent from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies specified in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19(1) of the Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of Section 19(1)(f) are violated. No costs.

¶24

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶25

True Copy

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28