Allowed

M.Yuvaraj v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Sept 2019WP/23966/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the suspension of the petitioner's driving license. It held that the Licensing Authority violated natural justice by passing an order without serving the show-cause notice and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings were quashed; the order suspending the driving license was set aside; the Original Driving License was directed to be handed over to the petitioner within 7 days.

M.Yuvaraj Vs Inspector of Police — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 09.09.2019

¶3

Coram::

¶4

The Honourable Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran

¶5

W.P.No.23966 of 2019

¶6

M.Yuvaraj, S/o.Mathappan, No.8/7, 193, Kumbarapatti K Kottai, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. ... Petitioner /versus/

¶7

Inspector of Police, Arachalur Police Station, Erode District.

¶8

The Licensing Authority-cum- Regional Transport Officer, Erode East, Erode District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent herein to return the Original Driving License (DL.No.TN 27 Y 20030000630) to the petitioner forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan For R1 & R2 : Mr.N.Inbanathan, Additional Government Pleader

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶11

The case of the petitioner is that, he is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore. On 15.06.2019, while he was on duty, an accident occurred. Pursuant to the accident, the 1^st respondent/Inspector of Police, Arachalur Police Station, Erode, has registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.164 of 2019, under Sections 279 & 304 – A of I.P.C. The Driving License of the petitioner retained by the 1^st respondent police has been now forwarded to the 2^nd

¶12

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

¶13

respondent recommending cancellation of the Driving License. The 2^nd respondent is illegally retaining the Original Driving License of the petitioner, contrary to the Judgement of the High Court reported in 2010 WLR page 100. The representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2019, to return the Original Driving License not been considered by the petitioner herein. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶14

The Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that under Section 19(1)(d) & (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the 2^nd respondent is empowered to cause enquiry and suspend or cancel the Driving License of a erring licensee. Accordingly, after registration of the F.I.R against the petitioner on 15.06.2019 action under Section 19 of Motor Vehicles Act has been contemplated and showcause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 02.08.2019 to explain why action should not be taken against him. Since the petitioner has not given any explanation, final order was passed on 21.08.2019 suspending the Driving License of the petitioner, for a period of 5 months and 29 days between 17.06.2019 to 16.12.2019.

¶15

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, no showcause notice was received by the petitioner and no opportunity was afforded to him before passing the order of cancelling the Driving License. It is also submitted that even the proceedings alleged to have been passed on 21.08.2019, not served on him.

¶16

The Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has produced the file pertaining to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent, wherein, there is no indication that the showcause notice dated 02.08.2019 was served on the petitioner. Similarly, even the copy of the proceedings dated 21.08.2019 also not sofar served on the petitioner.

¶17

It is obvious from the record that the 2^nd respondent has passed order without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, the proceeding are quashed. The 2^nd respondent is directed to handover the Original Driving License of the petitioner forthwith to the petitioner and get acknowledgement for the same. If any action is intended to be taken under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the 2^nd respondent shall do so, only in accordance with Act and Rules and not otherwise. The 2^nd respondent is hereby directed to handover the Original Driving Licence of the petitioner in person through special messenger, with a period of 7 days, from today.

¶18

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

¶19

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bsm
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Arachalur Police Station, Erode District.
2. The Licensing Authority-cum- Regional Transport Officer,
Erode East, Erode District.
+1cc to Mr.K.Hariharan, Advocate, S.R.No.77811
W.P.No.23966 of 2019
BS(CO)
CS/12/09/2019

¶21

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

M.Yuvaraj v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Yuvaraj v. Inspector of Police

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

T.a.S.Kaleelul Rahman Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing)

M.Prem Kumar Vs the State Rep by Its

The Dean Vs M/s.Hindusthan Surgicals

The Maritime Education and Vs The Director General of

P.Arumugam, Vs The District Collector

M.Arumugam, Vs The General Manager