IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 20589 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
FRANCIS A.J.
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.JEFRIN, AMANGRA HOUSE, VIMALA NAGAR, PALAKKULI,
MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670 645.
BY ADVS.
T.P.PRADEEP
MINIKUMARY M.V.
R.K.PRASANTH
P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
TRANS TOWERS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, VAZHUTHAKKAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.
2 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MANATHAVADY ZONE,
MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 121.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 20589 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 2 nd respondent by which his driving licence was suspended for a period of 5 months and 29 days.
2. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the 2 nd respondent asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his driving licence shall not be revoked under Section 19(1)(d) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply to the show cause notice. Pursuant to Ext.P3, the 2 nd respondent, the licensing authority, suspended the licence of the petitioner finding that his explanations are not satisfactory. The petitioner submits that he was not heard before suspending the licence. It is seen from Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 that the licence has been suspended invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act. Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that, if the licensing authority is satisfied, the said authority, after giving the holder of driving licence an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be WP(C) NO. 20589 OF 2022 3 recorded in writing, disqualify 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 revoke any such licence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. This Court, in the decision reported in Santu Thomas v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Vaikom [2018 (1) KHC 437] held that, before revoking the licence invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an opportunity of being heard shall be given to the holder of the driving licence. It is seen that though a show cause notice was issued, the petitioner was not heard before suspending his driving licence Further, Ext.P2 show cause notice and Ext.P4 order shows that the same have been issued without application of mind and in a cyclostyled format.
Since Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 have been issued in violation of the provisions of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in disregard to the principles of natural justice, Ext.P4 is set WP(C) NO. 20589 OF 2022 4 aside. There will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE AJ WP(C) NO. 20589 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20589/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.199/2022 OF MANATHAVADY POLICE STATION DATED 20/02/2022 (ALONG WITH TRANSLATION). Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OIF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY ZONE, DATED 13/04/2022.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY THE REPLY LETTER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09/06/2022 (ALONG WITH TRANSLATION).
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY DATED 09/06/2022.