[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abhay S. Rajeev vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.No.2811 of 2025 1
2025:KER:93865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 2811 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.38332
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ABHAY S. RAJEEV,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O RAJEEV S.K., RESIDING AT SREE NANDANAM,
KUREEKOBIL ROAD, ETTUMANOOR,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALAM PASHA B.
SMT.VISHAKHA J.
SMT.HASNA ASHRAF T.A
SHRI.ANANDU U.R.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, ETTUMANOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631
3 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VAIKOM, PIN - 686141
W.A.No.2811 of 2025 2
2025:KER:93865
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE R.T.O., TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T. K. VIPINDAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2811 of 2025 3
2025:KER:93865
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.38332 of 2025, invoking the
writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 notice dated
22.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent Joint Regional Transport
Officer, Sub Regional Transport Office, Vaikom, and a writ of
mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent not to take any
further steps pursuant to Ext.P11 or on the basis of the reports of
the 2nd respondent Station House Officer, Ettumanoor Police
Station.
2. The appellant-petitioner is the holder of driving licence
bearing No.KL36 20180002278 issued from the office of the Sub
Regional Transport Office, Vaikom. He was issued with Ext.P11
notice dated 22.08.2025 by the 3rd respondent Joint Regional
Transport Officer in the Sub Regional Transport Office, Vaikom,
the Licensing Authority. Ext.P11 notice was in continuation of a
show cause notice dated 03.06.2025 issued by the Licensing
Authority, invoking the provisions under Section 16 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, for revoking the driving licence of the
petitioner, on the ground stated therein. The said show cause
2025:KER:93865
notice was issued in connection with an incident that happened on
20.03.2025, while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing
Registration No.KL-05/BA-3253. In connection with the said
incident, which alleged to have occurred on 20.03.2025 at 6.00
p.m. near the private bus stand, Ettumanoor, a crime has been
registered against the appellant-petitioner as Crime No.379 of
2025 of Ettumanoor Police Station, as evident from Ext.P3 First
Information Report dated 20.03.2025, alleging an offence
punishable under Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
Regarding the very same incident, Crime No.390 of 2025 of
Ettumanoor Police Station has been registered against the
appellant-petitioner, as evident from Ext.P4 First Information
Report dated 24.03.2025, based on the First Information
Statement given by the driver of a stage carriage bearing
Registration No.KL-05/AM-9018 alleging an offence punishable
under Section 296(b), 351/1 and 118 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of wound
certificate dated 20.03.2025 issued from the Government Medical
College Hospital, Kottayam, regarding the injuries sustained by
the appellant-petitioner on account of an alleged assault by police
2025:KER:93865
near Ettumanoor bus stand on 20.03.2025. Ext.P2 is a copy of
the out-patient ticket dated 20.03.2025 issued from the
Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The document
marked as Ext.P5 is a video clipping evidencing the alleged
custodial assault and Ext.P6 is a video clipping of the news report
that appeared on Asianet News on 08.09.2025 regarding the said
incident. Ext.P7 is a copy of an affidavit dated 14.05.2025 sworn
to by a Psychiatrist of Metro Mind Centre for Neuropsychiatry,
Kalamassery. Ext.P8 is a copy of order dated 21.08.2025 in
O.P.No.161 of 2025 of the Advisory Board under the Kerala Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, whereby the externment
order dated 14.07.2025 passed against the appellant-petitioner,
by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range,
under Section 15(1)(b) of the said Act considering Crime No.1266
of 2019 of Kottayam West Police Station, Crime No.155 of 2024 of
Chingavanam Police Station and Crime No.390 of 2025 of
Ettumanoor Police Station (Ext.P4 FIR), was annulled under
Section 15(2) of the said Act, for the reasons stated by the
Advisory Board in Ext.P8 order. Ext.P9 is a copy of complaint
dated 01.09.2025 made by the appellant-petitioner before the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottayam alleging custodial
2025:KER:93865
torture, wrongful confinement and false implication. The said
complaint was followed by Ext.P10 private compliant dated
20.09.2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,
Ettumanoor. The document marked as Ext.P12 is a copy of report
dated 05.04.2025 of the 2nd respondent Station House Officer,
Ettumanoor Police Station, to the 4th respondent Regional
Transport Officer, Kottayam for revoking the driving licence of the
appellant-petitioner, under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
enclosing therewith a medical certificate. In the writ petition, it is
alleged that Ext.P12 report was filed before the 4th respondent
Regional Transport Officer along with a forged statement claiming
to be given by the Psychiatrist, who has sworn to Ext.P7 affidavit
dated 14.05.2025.
4. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment
dated 03.11.2025 disposed of the writ petition, declining
interference on Ext.P11 notice dated 22.08.2025 issued by the 3rd
respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub Regional
Transport Office, Vaikom. Paragraphs 2 to 6 and also the last
paragraph of the impugned judgment read thus;
"2. Earlier, the petitioner's father had filed W.P.(C)No. 13121
of 2025 alleging police harassment. The petitioner had also
sought an independent investigation into the illegal
2025:KER:93865
detention, assault and human rights violations allegedly
inflicted upon the petitioner and the son.
3. The allegations raised against the petitioner's son were
that he was found riding a bike near Ettumanoor private
stand on 20.03.2025 at around 5.30 p.m. and that the
petitioner's son stopped a running private bus and
showered filthy language on the bus driver. The further
allegation was that the petitioner's son started beating the
bus driver with the helmet, showing violent behavior. The
petitioner's son was subjected to a medical examination.
FIR No.379 of 2025 was also registered, and the petitioner
was released on bail on the same day. The writ petition was
dismissed on 27th June 2025.
4. Though W.A.No.1580 of 2025 was filed, the same was
permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the
State Police Complaints Authority or the District Police
Complaints Authority, as the case may be. The petitioner
submits that he has approached the Police Complaints
Authority, where the matter is pending consideration.
5. It is in the above background that Ext.P11 notice was
issued, directing the petitioner to appear before the Medical
Board to decide the question of suspension/ cancellation of
the driving licence. The Medical Certificate produced by the
petitioner in this case shows that he was under treatment
for bipolar disorder. The Doctor has denied giving any
statement to the police against the petitioners' son. In the
nature of the allegations raised against the petitioner, I do
not think that the request made in Ext.P11 is illegal.
6. However, taking note of the fact that very serious
allegations are raised against the police and the petitioner
2025:KER:93865
has already moved the Police Complaints Authority, it is
made clear that upholding Ext.P11 will in no way affect
those proceedings, which shall be dealt with on merits,
independently of Ext.P11.
The writ petition is disposed of as above."
5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.11.2025
of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.38332 of 2025, the
appellant-petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal,
invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958.
6. We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant-petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader
for the respondents.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would
contend that the impugned judgment dated 03.11.2025 of the
learned Single Judge is one rendered without properly
appreciating the legal and factual contentions raised by the
petitioner. The learned Single Judge committed a grave error in
not interfering with Ext.P11 notice dated 22.08.2025 issued by
the 3rd respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer. On the other
hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that
the learned Single Judge rightly declined interference on Ext.P11
2025:KER:93865
notice dated 22.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent Joint
Regional Transport Officer, in a proceedings initiated under
Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act for revoking the driving
licence of the appellant-petitioner. Therefore, no interference is
warranted in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge,
in this intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala
High Court Act.
8. Though the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
has raised arguments touching the merits of the matter now
pending consideration before the 3rd respondent Joint Regional
Transport Officer in the proceedings initiated against the appellant
under the provisions of Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act for
revoking his driving licence, we do not propose to consider those
arguments in this writ appeal, since it is for the appellant to raise
all such contentions before the 3rd respondent Joint Regional
Transport Officer in the pending proceedings.
9. Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with
the licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. Section 9 of the Act
deals with the grant of a driving licence. Section 15 deals with
renewal of driving licence and Section 16 deals with revocation of
driving licence on grounds of disease or disability. Section 17
2025:KER:93865
deals with orders refusing or revoking driving licenses and
appeals therefrom. Section 19 of the Act deals with the power of
the Licensing Authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence
or to revoke such a licence. Section 16 of the Act, which deals
with revocation of driving licence on grounds of disease or
disability, reads thus;
"16. Revocation of driving licence on grounds of disease or
disability.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the
foregoing sections, any licensing authority may at any time
revoke a driving licence or may require, as a condition of
continuing to hold such driving licence, the holder thereof to
produce a medical certificate in the same form and in the
same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section
8, if the licensing authority has reasonable grounds to
belive that the holder of the driving licence is, by virtue of
any disease or disability, unfit to drive a motor vehicle and
where the authority revoking a driving licence is not the
authority which issued the same, it shall intimate the fact of
revocation to the authority which issued that licence."
10. A reading of Ext.P11 notice dated 22.08.2025 issued
by the 3rd respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer would show
that the said notice is one issued in a proceedings initiated
against the appellant-petitioner, based on a show cause notice
dated 03.06.2025 issued under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles
Act. The authority of the 3rd respondent in issuing a show cause
2025:KER:93865
notice under Section 16 of the said Act is not under challenge.
The contention of the appellant-petitioner is that the proceedings
initiated under Section 16 of the Act for revocation of driving
licence is absolutely without any basis, by implicating the
appellant in a fabricated crime, in gross violation of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22
of the Constitution of India. When the authority of the 3rd
respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer for initiating a
proceedings for revocation of driving licence under Section 16 of
the Act is not under challenge, the question as to whether the
facts and circumstances of the case warrants revocation of the
driving licence of the appellant under the said statutory provision
is a matter which requires consideration by the competent
authority, after considering the explanation offered by the
appellant. Therefore, raising contentions touching the merits of
the issues involved in that proceedings, the appellant-petitioner
cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash
Ext.P11 notice dated 22.08.2025.
11. In State of U.P v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2
SCC 179] the Apex Court held that, when the show cause
2025:KER:93865
notice was issued under a statutory provision calling upon to
show cause, the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the
notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been
issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of
issuing a show cause notice is to afford an opportunity of hearing,
and once cause is shown, it is open to the authority to consider
the matter in the light of the facts and submission placed before
it, and only, thereafter, a final decision in the matter could be
taken. Therefore, interference by the Court before that would be
premature.
12. In Seimens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2006)
12 SCC 33], the Apex Court held that ordinarily, a writ court may
not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain a writ
petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the notice
appears to have been without jurisdiction.
13. In Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories [(2007)
13 SCC 270], the Apex Court held that, normally, the writ court
should not interfere at the stage of issuance of a show cause
notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample
opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities
concerned and satisfy the authorities concerned about the
2025:KER:93865
absence of a case for proceeding against the person against
whom the show cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from
interference at the stage of issuance of a show cause notice, in
order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the
authorities concerned, is the normal rule. However, the said rule
is not without exceptions. Where a show cause notice is issued
either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law,
certainly, in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to
interfere even at the stage of issuance of the show cause notice.
The interference at the show cause notice stage should be rare
and not in a routine manner. The mere assertion by the writ
petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of
process of law would not suffice. It should be prima
facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be
necessary, interference is ruled out.
14. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is warranted on a show cause notice issued under a
statutory provision unless the notice is shown to have been issued
palpably without any authority of law or that it is an abuse of
process of law. The mere assertion in the writ petition that
2025:KER:93865
the show cause notice has been issued without any authority of
law or that it is an abuse of process of law would not suffice. It
should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual
adjudication would be necessary, no interference of this Court in
the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution is warranted.
15. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the
decisions referred to supra, the appellant-petitioner cannot invoke
the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11
notice dated 22.08.2025, on the grounds raised in the writ
petition. Alleging commission of serious offences by the Police
officials in connection with the incident that alleged to have
occurred on 20.03.2025, the appellant has submitted Ext.P9
complaint dated 01.09.2025 before the Superintendent of Police,
Kottayam and Ext.P10 private complaint before the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor. The factual issues raised in
those complaints cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with in disposing of
the writ petition, after declining interference on Ext.P11 notice
2025:KER:93865
dated 22.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent Joint Regional
Transport Officer.
In the result, this writ appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
2025:KER:93865
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 2811 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.10.2025
ISSUED BY THE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM IN COMPLAINT NO. 19/25
