Santhoshkumar C.G vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1863 Ker

WP(C).No.1220 OF 2021(B)

                                 1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

   MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.1220 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER/S:

            SANTHOSHKUMAR C.G.,
            AGED 53 YEARS
            S/O.GOPALAN, CHULLIVELI HOUSE, S.N.PURAM P.O.,
            CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA -688582.

            BY ADV. SRI.ARAVIND GHOSH

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     STATE OF KERALA
            REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
            HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      3     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
            TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      4     SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
            CHANGANASSERRY POLICE STATION,
            KOTTAYAM-686101.

      5     ADDITIONAL LICENSING AUTHORITY,
            SUB-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
            CHANGANASSERRY, KOTTAYAM-686101.




            SR.GP BIMAL K NATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1220 OF 2021(B)

                                2


                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a driver of KSRTC holding Ext.P1

licence, which was issued by the Assistant Licensing

Authority of Sub Regional Transport Office, Cherthala.

On 23.12.2020, an accident occurred involving the

KSRTC bus driven by the petitioner, in which a scooter

rider sustained injuries. Crime was registered on the

same day, as Crime No.1593/2020 under Sections 279,

337 and 338 of IPC. Show cause notice was issued

under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the

petitioner by the fifth respondent. Thereafter, by Ext.P6

order dated 13.01.2021, his licence was suspended for a

specified period.

2. Contending that Ext.P4 notice and Ext.P6

order were issued by the fifth respondent without

authority, the Writ Petition has been preferred. It was

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the licensing authority in relation to the petitioner was

the Assistant Licensing Authority, Cherthala and hence WP(C).No.1220 OF 2021(B)

suspension of licence by the Additional Licensing

Authority, Changanassery was without authority. It

was contended that he has no authority to issue show

cause notice as well as to suspend the licence under

the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The learned senior Government Pleader

invited my attention to the definition clause of

licensing authority as provided under Section 2(20) of

the Motor Vehicles Ac, which defines licensing

authority. It means an authority empowered to issue

licences under Chapter II or as the case may be

Chapter III. A reading of Chapter II and III gives a

clear idea that the term "a licensing authority" has to

be read along with section 2(20) of the Motor Vehicles

Act clearly implies that licensing authority as

contemplated under the empowering Act is only the

person who is competent to issue licences and need

not be the licensing authority in relation to the

accused. If such an interpretation as agreed by he

petitioner is adopted that will be doing violence to the WP(C).No.1220 OF 2021(B)

statutory provisions and will also be contrary to the

intention of the statute. Here, the authority who has

issued Ext.P6 order is the licensing authority in

relation to the place, where the incident occurred and

the crime was registered.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently contended that the incident occurred

inside the KSRTC bus stand, where the injured had no

reason to enter. Evidently, it is a question of fact. The

petitioner is entitled to challenge Ext.P6 by

appropriate proceedings in an appeal as provided in

the Motor Vehicles Act. Having considered this, I am

not inclined to interfere at this stage. The Writ

Petition is dismissed, reserving the right of the

petitioner herein, to raise all his contentions in

appropriate proceedings, if so advised.

Writ Petition (C) is dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV WP(C).No.1220 OF 2021(B)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.4/574/1988 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LICENSING AUTHORITY, CHRTHALA.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1593/2020 OF CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION.

EXHIBIT P3 TH TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING DIFFERENT ANGLE OF THE PLACE OCCURRENCE.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.1.2021.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.1.2021.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.1.2021.

    RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS        NIL