Madras High Court
K.Gopalakrishnan vs The Regional Transport Officer on 14 December, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD).No.18674 and 18676 of 2021
K.Gopalakrishnan : Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Regional Transport Officer,
and Licensing Authority,
Transport Department,
Karur – 639 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur.
(Crime No.1530/2021) : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent
in show cause No.TN 47/2021/741 dated 01.12.2021, quash the same and
consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith return petitioner's
original driving licence bearing DL No.TN33-19940002935 to him
within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul
For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/15
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
ORDER
********************
This common order will govern the captioned main writ petition
and the two captioned writ miscellaneous petitions (W.M.Ps) therein.
2. In the captioned main writ petition, the prayer is for issue of a
writ of certiorarified mandamus. The certiorari limb is directed against an
'order dated 01.12.2021 bearing reference Show Cause
No.TN47/2021/741' made by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to
as 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity) wherein and
whereby the first respondent as suspended the writ petitioner's driving
licence for a period of two months (18.10.2021 to 17.12.2021) under
Section 19(1) of 'the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No.59 of
1988)' [hereinafter referred to as 'said Act' for the sake of convenience
and clarity]. The mandamus limb is for a direction to the respondents to
return the writ petitioner's 'original driving licence (Driving Licence
No.TN33-19940002935)' issued on 12.08.1994 which shall hereinafter
referred to as 'said Driving Licence' (for the sake of convenience and
clarity) on the ground that it is being retained without any powers to do
so, the same having been seized/impounded on 18.10.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
3. Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on
behalf of both the respondents. Owing to the short compass on which
captioned writ petition turns, with the consent of learned counsel on both
sides, captioned main writ petition was taken up.
4. Let me deal with the certiorari limb of the prayer first. The
impugned order reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
5. The simple point urged by learned counsel for writ petitioner is,
the impugned order does not contain reasons to be recorded in writing
though the impugned order was preceded by a 'show cause notice dated
10.11.2021 bearing reference No.24340/B3/21' (hereinafter 'said SCN'
for the sake of convenience and clarity) and the writ petitioner has duly
responded to said SCN vide reply dated 18.11.2021. Learned counsel
contends that the writ petitioner's response has neither been discussed
nor has reasons for not accepting the same been recorded in writing.
6. This takes us to Section 19(1) of said Act which reads as
follows:
'19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from
holding a driving licence or revoke such licence
(1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder
of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he—
(a) is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard; or
(b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance within the meaning of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or
(c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the
commission of a cognizable offence; or
(d) has by his previous conduct as driver of a motor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
vehicle shown that his driving is likely to be attended with
danger to the public; or
(e) has obtained any driving licence or a licence to drive
a particular class or description of motor vehicle by fraud or
misrepresentation; or
(f) has committed any such act which is likely to cause
nuisance or danger to the public, as may be prescribed by the
Central Government, having regard to the objects of this Act;
or
(g) has failed to submit to, or has not passed, the tests
referred to in the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 22; or
(h) being a person under the age of eighteen years who
has been granted a learner’s licence or a driving licence with
the consent in writing of the person having the care of the
holder of the licence and has ceased to be in such care,
it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order—
(i) disqualifying 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
(ii) revoke any such licence.'
(underlining made by this Court for highlighting and for ease
of reference)
7. A careful perusal of the plain language of Section 19(1) of said
Act makes it clear that the licensing authority (first respondent in this
case) has to record reasons in writing in an order disqualifying a person
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
for a specified period from holding driving licence. In the instant case
i.e., case on hand, a reading of the impugned order (scanned and
reproduced supra) makes it clear that it refers to the 18.10.2021 reply of
the writ petitioner (the date is erroneously given, the reply is dated
18.11.2021 as the said SCN itself is dated 10.11.2021) but it says that the
reply merely says 'NOT ADMITTED THE CHARGES' and thereafter
from perusal of records and averments, it is found that there is no reason
to exonerate the petitioner. Therefore, there is an infraction of the plain
language of Section 19(1) of said Act which makes it statutorily
imperative for the licensing authority to do two things while
disqualifying a person from holding driving licence for a specified
period. Those two things which a licensing authority is to do/follow
(statutorily imperative) are:
(a) an opportunity of being heard to be given
before the order is made; and
(b) the reasons for making the order should be
recorded in writing.
8. Therefore, the above point turns on a clear case of violation of
Natural Justice Principles (NJP) which is not just in the broad genric
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
spectrum of NJP jurisprudence alone but a requirement which is
statutorily ingrained in Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of said Act itself. In
other words, there is an infraction of the very provision i.e., Section
19(1) of said Act under which the impugned order has been made and
that turns on NJP. In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to
entertain the captioned writ petition on the teeth of an appeal provision
under Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of said Act. This view of mine is
fortified by ratio laid down by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
P.Sethuram's case being P.Sethuram v. The Licensing Authority, the
Regional Transport Officer, the Regional Transport Office, Dindigul,
reported in 2010-Writ L.R.100 which was penned {for the Division
Bench} by Hon'ble Justice V.Ramasubramanian of this Court (as His
Lordship then was). P.Sethuram's case was also a case of suspension of
driving licence for a specified period of three months and challenge to
this order was entertained.
9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the argument of learned
State counsel that the objections of writ petitioner i.e., objections dated
18.11.2021 (wrongly mentioned as 18.10.2021 in the impugned order)
have been considered pales into insignificance. In other words, it does
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
not persuade this Court to sustain the impugned order.
10. After having dealt with the certiorari limb of the prayer, I now
move to the mandamus limb of the prayer which is for returning the said
driving licence which was seized/impounded on 18.10.2021 owing to a
fatal accident on 14.10.2021, this Court is informed that the writ
petitioner is working as a Driver with the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation with over fourteen years of service and the fatal accident
occurred on 14.10.2021 when he was behind the wheel in the route of
Pollachi to Karur. It is submitted that it was festival occasion, the street
vendors and public were busy selling and buying pooja articles. The road
was crowded and the writ petitioner is not guilty of driving in a rash and
negligent manner is further burden of the song. I refrain myself from
expressing any opinion on this plea as the same is left open for criminal
prosecution if any and consideration of first respondent in redoing the
aforementioned impugned order.
11. Suffice to say that in cases where driving licences have been
impounded and retained owing to fatal accident following earlier orders
and more particularly, aforementioned P.Sethuram's case principle, I have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
directed return of driving licence and one such case is M.Alagarsamy v.
The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Karur,
vide W.P(MD).No.20467 of 2021 in which order was made on
16.11.2021 and the same reads as follows:
'Mr.S.Prasanth, learned counsel on record for the
sole writ petitioner is before this virtual Court.
2. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that
the writ petitioner is working as a Driver with the Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation from 2012. It is
submitted that on 08.10.2021, there was an unfortunate
fatal accident, when the writ petitioner was behind the
wheel in the course of his duty while driving a public
transport bus plying between Karur and Dindigul. A First
Information Report (FIR) has been registered inter alia
under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) by the second respondent police. This Court is
informed that the matter is still at FIR stage.
3. Be that as it may, learned counsel submits that
the second respondent had seized the original driving
licence of the writ petitioner at the time of the
aforementioned accident and the second respondent had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
handed over the original driving license of the writ
petitioner to the first respondent. Be that as it may, the
original driving licence of the writ petitioner was also
issued to the writ petitioner on 08.07.1994 and it bears
'No.TN57 1994 0001220' (hereinafter 'said DLR' for the
sake of convenience and clarity).
4. Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government
Pleader accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents.
5. There is no disputation or disagreement that the
captioned matter is covered by the principle laid down by
a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in P.Sethuram
VS. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport
Officer in W.A.No.374 of 2009 authored by Hon'ble
Justice V.Ramasubramanian (as His Lordship then was)
presiding the Hon'ble Division Bench. This judgment is
reported in 2010-Writ L.R.100 and this deals with the
scope of the power of the first respondent in cases of such
nature.
6. There is no disputation or disagreement before
this Court that in similar matters prayers have been
acceded to and that includes orders dated 30.04.2019 in
W.P.No.13570 of 2019 and 10.11.2020 in W.P(MD).No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
15797 of 2020 made by Honourable Predecessor Judges.
7. Learned State counsel submits, on instructions,
that the matter is in FIR stage (as already alluded to
supra) and prosecution will be pursued. However, there is
no disputation qua the aforementioned earlier orders
made by Honourable Predecessor Judges and the same
having been complied with by the State without carrying
the matter in appeal by way of intra-court appeals.
8. In the light of the narrative thus far, this Court is
of the considered view that the prayer in the captioned
writ petition viz., prayer to return the original driving
licence [bearing licence No.TN57 1994 0001220] of the
writ petitioner can be acceded to.
9. This Court is informed that the original driving
licence i.e., said DLR is now with the first respondent.
The first respondent shall take necessary written
undertaking, retain photocopies of the original driving
licence and return the writ petitioner's aforementioned
original driving licence i.e., said DLR to the writ
petitioner (under due acknowledgment) as early as
possible and in any event within a fortnight from today
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
i.e., on or before 30.11.2021. The writ petitioner shall go
over to the office of the first respondent on any working
day in the after noon session between 02.00 PM and
04.00 PM and the original driving licence shall be
handed over to him under due acknowledgment.
10. It is made clear that the writ petitioner shall
produce the original driving licence as and when called
for, make himself available for the criminal case to
proceed and cooperate with the investigation.
11. Captioned Writ Petition is disposed of in
aforesaid manner i.e., with aforementioned directive and
there shall be no order as to costs.'
12. There is no disputation that there is no appeal against
aforementioned order made in M.Alagarsamy's case and similar matters.
It appears that the directives have been complied with but that is subject
to confirmation. I deem it appropriate to leave it at that. Suffice to say
that the mandamus limb of the captioned writ petition is also acceded to.
13. Regarding the certiorari limb, I deem it appropriate to make the
following order:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
(a) The impugned order dated 01.12.2021 bearing
reference Show Cause No.TN 47/2021/741 made by the
first respondent is set aside solely on the ground that
reasons in writing have not been recorded in the light of
objections of the writ petitioner as mandated in Section
19(1) of said Act;
(b) In the light of the above limb, though obvious it
is made clear that I have not expressed any view or
opinion on the merits of the matter;
(c) The first respondent shall now proceed from the
SCN and reply stage i.e., said SCN i.e., SCN dated
10.11.2021 bearing reference No.24340/B3/21 and the
reply sent by the writ petitioner dated 18.11.2021 and
redo the legal drill of making an order under Section
19(1) of said Act.
15. The above legal drill shall be in compliance with requirements
ingrained in Section 19(1) of said Act. The above legal drill of making
the Section 19(1) of said Act exercise de novo shall be commenced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
forthwith and completed as expeditiously as the business of the first
respondent would permit and in any event within seven weeks from
today i.e., on or before 25.01.2022.
16. Captioned writ petition is ordered on above terms with the
aforementioned directives. Consequently, captioned W.M.Ps are disposed
of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
14.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pkn
To
1. The Regional Transport Officer,
and Licensing Authority,
Transport Department,
Karur – 639 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
M.SUNDAR., J.
pkn
W.P.(MD)No.22062 of 2021
14.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
