P.Selvan vs The Licensing Authority on 9 January, 2012

Madras High Court

DATE: 9-1-2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

Writ Petition No.304 of 2012 and

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012

P.Selvan .. Petitioner.

Versus

1. The Licensing Authority,

cum Regional Transport Officer,

Chennai (South),

Chennai-600 014.

2. The Branch Manager,

Metropolitan Transport Corporation,

Ayanavaram Depot,

Chennai. .. Respondents.

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated Nil.12.2011 and to quash the same in consequence to that direct the first respondent to issue the driving license of the petitioner bearing No.TN 74 19900004595. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Anbarasan

For Respondents : Mr.N.Sakthivel

Government Advocate

O R D E R

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Though this writ petition has been listed under the caption `for withdrawal' the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the matter be heard on merits and an appropriate order be passed by this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner from holding or obtaining a licence and from driving any class of vehicles, for a period of six months, in exercise of the powers conferred on them, under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. The suspension of the driving licence of the petitioner is from 9.12.2011 to 8.6.2012. Pursuant to the said order, the original driving licence of the petitioner had been detained in the office of the first respondent stating that it would be returned to him after the expiry of the said period.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, without proper application of mind. He had further submitted that the petitioner had not admitted that the grave accident had happened due to his rash and negligent driving.

6. The learned counsel had placed before this Court an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, reported in P.Sethuram Vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul (2010 Writ L.R. 100), wherein, it had been held that the impounding of a licence could be done only after the issuance of a show cause notice.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted, on instructions, that the impugned order had been issued by the first respondent, invoking the power vested in him, under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said order had been issued as the petitioner had admitted that the accident in question had been caused due to his rash and negligent driving. Further, the impugned order had been passed by the first respondent based on the explanation submitted by him, on 7.12.2011, pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 22.11.2011, issued by the first respondent.

8. The learned counsel had further submitted that the decision of the Division Bench cited by the petitioner would not apply to the present case, as the Division Bench of this Court had held that the order passed by the authority concerned, without issuing a show cause notice, under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. However, in the present case, the first respondent had issued a show cause notice, dated 22.11.2011. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, dated 7.12.2011, and he had admitted that the accident in question had happened due to his rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the first respondent was right in passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the first respondent had further submitted that an appeal remedy, under Section 19(3) the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is available to the petitioner, which he could invoke.

9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, this Court is of the view that the decision cited supra would not be applicable to the present case. Further, it is seen that an appeal remedy is provided, under Section 19(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, it is seen that the first respondent had passed the impugned order after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and after obtaining an explanation from him, regarding the accident in question. It is also noted that the first respondent had recorded, in the impugned order, dated Nil.12.2011, that the petitioner had admitted that the accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving.

10. It is also noted that an appeal remedy is available to the petitioner, under Section 19(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which he could avail. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy provided, under Section 19(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if so advised. It would also be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him before the appellate authority. If the petitioner chooses to file an appeal, the appellate authority concerned would consider same, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, without being influenced by the observations made this Court. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index:Yes/No 9-1-2012

Internet:Yes/No

csh

M.JAICHANDREN,J.

csh