Allowed

Ravi.P v. The Licensing Authority

Madras HC10 Jan 2023WP(MD)/573/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court set aside a six-month suspension of a bus driver's licence. The Court held that the statutory scheme requires a personal hearing and reasoned orders, and imposed a maximum penalty of three months for a first offence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Show Cause Order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration with a personal hearing. The licence suspension was capped at three months from the date of seizure.

Ravi.P Vs The Licensing Authority — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023 and W.M.P. (MD) No. 572 of 2023

P.Ravi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office (RTO), Transport Department, Srirangam, Trichy District. ... Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the Respondent in Show Cause No. TN-48/2022/742 dated 26.10.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondent to return back the petitioner's Original Driving Licence bearing DL.No. TN04 19861001133 within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : Mr. K.Gokul For Respondent : Mr. K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader

¶12

1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023

¶15

Heard Mr. K.Gokul, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K.S.Selvaganesan, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶16

The Petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Perambalur Region, and while on duty, the bus bearing Registration No. TN-45-N-3461 driven by him had on 17.09.2022 met with an accident. The Police Officer, who is investigating that accident, had on 20.09.2022 collected the driving licence of the Petitioner and forwarded it to Respondent, who is the Licensing Authority. Thereafter, the Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 26.09.2022 seeking explanation for the said fatal accident and after receipt of explanation dated 07.10.2022 from him, by proceedings in Show Cause No. TN 48/2022/742 dated 26.10.2022 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19(1)(d) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, suspended the licence of the Petitioner for the period

¶17

2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023

¶19

from 18.09.2022 to 18.03.2023 (6 months), which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶20

The primordial attack on the impugned order by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that though the Petitioner has submitted his explanation in response to the show cause notice, neither it has been considered nor any opportunity of personal hearing has been afforded to the Petitioner, before passing the impugned order entailing adverse civil consequences to him.

¶21

In this context, it must be noticed that certain amendments have been made to the Act, which have come into force from 01.09.2019 onwards and clause (4) in Section 206 and clause (1-A) in Section 19 have been inserted to the Act that have bearing to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition, and read as follows:-

¶22

" 206. Power of police officer to impound document:-

¶23

(4) A police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed, an offence under any of Sections 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194-C, 194-D or 194-E, seize the

¶24

3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023

¶26

driving licence held by such driver and forward it to the licensing authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under Section 19:

¶27

Provided that the person seizing the licence shall give to the

¶28

person surrendering the licence a temporary acknowledgement therefor, but such acknowledgement shall not authorise the holder to drive until the licence has been returned to him."

¶29

" 19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence:-

¶30

(1-A) Where a licence has been forwarded to the licensing authority under sub-section (4) of Section 206, the licensing authority, if satisfied after giving the holder of the driving licence an opportunity of being heard, may either discharge the holder of a driving licence or, it may for detailed reasons recorded in writing, make an order disqualifying such person from holding or obtaining any licence to drivel all or any class or description of vehicles specified in the licence:-

¶31

4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

(a)

¶33

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023

¶34

(a) for a first offence, for a period of three months;

¶35

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, with revocation of the driving licence of such person:

¶36

Provided that where a driving licence is revoked under this

¶37

Section, the name of the holder of such driving licence may be placed in the public domain in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government."

¶38

It is evident on a plain reading of the said statutory provisions that the Licensing Authority has to record detailed reasons in writing after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the concerned holder of the driving licence for having arrived at the conclusion to either discharge or disqualify him from holding the driving licence. The Respondent has stated in the impugned order that the explanation of the Petitioner was read but not acceptable, but no reasons have been stated by the Respondent for having arrived at the conclusion to suspend the driving licence of the Petitioner in this case. That apart, there is nothing in the impugned order reflecting that any opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the Petitioner, which would obviously vitiate the proceedings.

¶39

5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

¶41

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023

¶42

There is also substantial force in the contention of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the aforesaid statutory provisions empower the Licensing Authority to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence for a first offence, as in this case, only for a period of three months and that the Petitioner cannot be deprived of his right of holding the driving licence beyond that period of three months, which has to be computed from the date on which the driving licence has been seized from him, and in the present case, the imposition of the penalty of suspension of driving licence for the period from 18.09.2022 to 18.03.2023, i.e., 6 months, is bad in law. On a conspectus analysis of clause (4) of Section 206 of the Act, which mandates that after seizure of licence by the Police Officer, its holder shall not be authorized to drive until it had been returned to him, and clause (1-A)(a) of Section 19 of the Act, which envisages disqualifying a person from holding a licence to drive vehicles for a first offence for a period of three months, it would obviously follow that in the event of the Licensing Authority arriving at the conclusion that penalty of suspension of licence has to be imposed for the first offence, it cannot be for a period beyond three months from the actual date on which the driving licence has been seized from its holder by the Police Officer after the occurrence of accident.

¶43

6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

¶45

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023

¶46

The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the Writ Petition is disposed on the following terms:-

¶47

(i) the impugned Order in Show Cause No. TN 48/2022/742 dated 26.10.2022 passed by the Respondent is set aside and remitted to the Respondent for fresh consideration of the matter;

¶48

(ii) the Respondent shall immediately consider the explanation dated 07.10.2022 submitted by the Petitioner for the show cause notice dated 26.09.2022 issued to him;

¶49

(iii) if any other details or supporting documents are necessary, the deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing by the Respondent to the Petitioner requiring the same to be furnished within two clear working days from the date of its receipt by him;

¶50

(iv) an enquiry shall be conducted thereafter affording full opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner to explain his position in that regard;

¶51

(v) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken communicated under written acknowledgment;

¶52

(vi) in the event that the Respondent is not able to pass final orders within the period of three months from the actual date of seizure of the driving licence

¶53

7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023

¶55

of the Petitioner by the Police Officer, the driving licence of the Petitioner shall be then forthwith returned to him with endorsement to the effect that the Petitioner shall not be precluded from driving the vehicles for which he is otherwise authorized from that date onwards, subject to the result of the proceedings in which final orders would follow later;

¶56

(vii) the Respondent shall file report of such compliance by 28.02.2023 before the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court;

¶57

(viii) consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed; and

¶58

(ix) there shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

10.01.2023

¶60

SJ NCC : Yes/No Index: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy by 23.01.2023.

¶61

¶62

The Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office (RTO), Transport Department, Srirangam, Trichy District.

¶63

Copy to

¶64

8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶66

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023

¶67

9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023 P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶69

¶70

W.P.(MD) No. 573 of 2023

¶71

Dated : 10.01.2023

¶72

10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ravi.P v. The Licensing Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi.P v. The Licensing Authority

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

Chinnaiah.a Vs The Commissioner of Hindu Religious

Senthil Nathan.E Vs The Commissioner

Tvl.Cosmo Recreation Club Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Jageer Hussen.M Vs Tamilnadu Wakf Board

Gopinath .P Vs The Regional Transport Officer

Tvl. Diana Manamagil Mandram Vs The State Tax Officer