Allowed

K.Sundararasu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Dec 2018WP/31974/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an impugned order suspending a bus driver's license for six months without recording reasons or considering objections. The Court held a failure to record reasons violates mandatory procedures under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petition was allowed, and the license was directed to be returned immediately.

What did the court decide?

The impugned suspension order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to receive his driving license forthwith.

K.Sundararasu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. 31974 of 2018 and W.M.P.s 37219, 37221 & 37224 of 2018

¶6

K.Sundararasu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by Transport Commissioner,
Transport Department,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office (East),
Karur Main Road, Kollukattumedu,
Lakkapuram Post,
Erode-638 002.
3. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Erode City Region, Unit-I,
Erode. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Se.Mu.Order No.28593/E1/2018, dated 12.10.2018 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and further direct the respondents to return the petitioner's driving license in D.L.No.TN.36W 2010 0005423 enabling him to join and continue his service in the 3^rd respondent transport corporation.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Star For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy, Special Government Pleader

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This writ petition challenges the order passed by the 2nd respondent - Licensing Authority/Regional Transport Officer, Erode suspending the driving license of the petitioner herein

¶11

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

¶12

under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, (hereinafter called as 'Act).

¶13

The petitioner is working as driver in Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation at Erode Region. The bus bearing Regn. No.TN 33 N 2108, which was driven by the petitioner involved in accident and upon a complaint criminal case has been registered against him by the 1^st respondent police for offences under Sections 279 & 304A of IPC. Since one of the offences alleged against petitioner is cognizable one, the licensing authority concerned had issued show cause notices to the petitioner invoking the provision in Section 19(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, appropriate enquiry was conducted and final order has also been passed by the 2^nd respondent thereby suspending the license of the petitioner for a specified period. It is this order which is now under challenge in the instant writ petition.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suspending the license of the petitioner has been passed by the licensing authority concerned in a cryptic manner in printed formate wherein the name of the petitioner and the period of suspension alone has been written in pen and no reason whatever has been assigned to arrive at such conclusion which is totally in violation of the provisions contained in Section 19 (1) of the Act.

¶15

The learned counsel further submitted that the objection submitted by the petitioner was not considered and no proper enquiry has been conducted by the licensing authority. When an objection has been raised for show cause notice the licensing authority is expected to consider the same and pass a reasoned final order and in the instant case the licensing authority concerned has not only failed to consider the objection raised by the petitioner, but, the authority had passed the impugned order mechanically in the ready-made form as well.

¶16

Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the police and the licensing authority contended that the petitioner has used his vehicle in the commission of cognizable offence and criminal case has been registered against him. Therefore, the licensing authority concerned invoking the provision in Section 19(1)(c) of the Act had issued show causes notice to the petitioner and upon considering the objection, final order has been passed suspending the license for a limited period. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the criminal case has been registered against him which included a cognizable offence and as per Section 19(1) of the Act, the licensing authority concerned was satisfied that the petitioner used his vehicle in the commission of cognizable offence and, therefore, passed the impugned order suspending the license for a specified period. In the said circumstances, according to the

¶17

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

¶18

learned Special Government Pleader, no other reason is required to be given in the order.

¶19

The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that as against the order suspending the license, an appeal is provided under Section 19(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and without availing such alternative remedy, petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition before this court.

¶20

I have considered the rival submissions carefully.

¶21

Before considering the rival submissions, this court is of the view, that it would be useful to refer to the relevant provision of Section 19(1) of the Act which read thus:

¶22

"19. Power of licensing authority to

¶23

disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence.— (1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he — ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence; or ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (h) being a person under the age of eighteen years who has been granted a learner’s licence or a driving licence with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the holder of the licence and has ceased to be in such care, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order—

¶24

(i) disqualifying that person for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence; or

¶25

(ii) revoke any such licence."

¶26

[Italics supplied]

¶27

A cursory reading of the above provisions would make it clear that it is mandatory on the part of the licensing authority to issue show cause notice to the holder of a driving license and the licensee should also be given an opportunity of being heard and after due enquiry, if the licensing authority is satisfied himself that the driving license is liable to be suspended on account of the contingency specified in the show cause notice, after recording reasons for the same, he may pass appropriate orders as enshrined in Section 19(1)(h)(i) or (ii) of the Act. But, from a perusal of the impugned order, it could

¶28

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

¶29

be seen that the licensing authority concerned in the instant case did not record any reason whatsoever for suspending the license and the impugned order has been passed in a total non application of mind. It could also been seen that that impugned order has been passed in the printed form without assigning any valid reasons for arriving at the satisfaction and the authority had simply filled in the name of the license and the period of suspension of license. Thus, the licensing authority in the instant case has flouted the mandatory procedures while invoking the power under Section 19(1) of the Act and on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶30

So far as the period of suspension is concerned, the license was suspended for the period of six months from 30.06.2018 to 29.12.2018. Now, almost 5 months of suspension period was already over. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no need to remit back the matter to the authorities for passing fresh order. Hence, the impugned order is set aside.

¶31

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the licensing authority is set aside and the respondents are directed to return the driving license to the petitioner forthwith. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpp To 1. The Transport Commissioner, State of Tamil Nadu, Transport Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2. The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office (East), Karur Main Road, Kollukattumedu, Lakkapuram Post, Erode-638 002.

¶33

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

¶34

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Erode City Region, Unit-I, Erode.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.J.Star, Advocate SR.No.82818

¶36

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.83714

¶37

W.P. 31974 of 2018 and W.M.P.s 37219, 37221 & 37224 of 2018

¶38

GMY(11/12/2018)

¶39

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

K.Sundararasu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sundararasu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Bay Resorts Ltd, Vs the Tahsildhar

N.C.Vijayakumar Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

St.Antonys Church, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Kennedy, Vs the Secretary to Government

Good Shepherd Convent Vs The Secretary

P.Kumaran Vs The Chairman