P.Sekar vs The Licensing Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 20675 Mad

                                                                                   W.P.(MD) No.14712 of 2015


                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                       DATED: 07.10.2021

                                                           CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

                                                W.P.(MD) No.14712 of 2015
                                                          and
                                                 W.M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015

                 P.Sekar                                                           ... Petitioner
                                                             vs.
                 The Licensing Authority,
                 (The Regional Transport Officer),
                 The Regional Transport Office,
                 Srirangam,
                 Trichy.                                                           ... Respondent

                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue
                 a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the respondent
                 relating to his impugned order 20.04.2015, passed in Se.Mu.Order No.
                 5581/A3/2015, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to return
                 the driving licence of the petitioner to him without any remarks and award cost.


                                      For Petitioner        : Mr.S.Arunachalam
                                      For Respondents       : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
                                                             Government Advocate


                 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                     W.P.(MD) No.14712 of 2015




                                                          ORDER

The prayer sought for herein is for the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,

calling for the records from the respondent relating to his impugned order

20.04.2015, passed in Se.Mu.Order No.5581/A3/2015, quash the same and

consequently direct the respondent to return the driving licence of the petitioner

to him without any remarks and award cost.

2.The petitioner was the driver of the Government Transport Corporation

and on the date of the accident ie., on 22.01.2015, he drove the vehicle with

Reg.No.TN 01 N 0169, which met with fatal accident, pursuant to which, a case

was registered by the concerned Police Station followed by the seizure of the

driving licence of the petitioner and it was handed over to the respondent

Regional Transport Officer, who is the licensing authority.

3.The respondent, having the receipt of the driving licence of the petitioner,

had issued a notice to conduct an enquiry under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) No.14712 of 2015

Act, 1988 and accordingly, an enquiry was conducted. After completing the

enquiry, the respondent found that since the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a

rash and negligent manner, the accident had occurred, based on which, the

respondent inflicted the punishment against the petitioner suspending his licence

for a period of six moths from 23.01.2015 to 22.07.2015 and accordingly, passed

an order on 20.04.2015, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

4.Though this Writ Petition was filed in the year 2015, when it is taken up

for final hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent

would submit that, since the very suspension period itself was over as early as in

the year 2015 and the petitioner has undergone the suspension period, nothing

survives in this Writ Petition. Therefore, it can be disposed of, he contended.

5.Further, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by relying upon

the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100

in the case of P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority and also a recent

decision of this Court dated 07.09.2021 made in W.P.(MD)No.16061 of 2021 in

the case of N.Anandhan vs. The Regional Transport Officer, would submit that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) No.14712 of 2015

if at all any enquiry is conducted by the respondent under Section 19 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, such enquiry shall be only to the limited extent to verify

whether any violations have been noticed on the part of the driver, whose licence

has been seized. During the plying of the vehicle concerned, if it is in violation of

any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules made thereunder, it is

liable to be considered as a punishable act on the part of the driver concerned.

Then, said punishment can be imposed and for other reasons, normally the guilt

of the party/driver for attracting the substantiative provisions of the Indian Penal

Code, that can be decided only by the competent Criminal Court.

6.Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek

indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned order stating that the reasons

stated therein based on Section 19 enquiry cannot be conclusive reasons for

arriving at conclusion that the petitioner's licence can be suspended for six

months period.

7.I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) No.14712 of 2015

8.With regard to the decisions referred to, by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, no doubt, in respect of the Division Bench Judgment, during the

pendency of Section 19 enquiry, by way of an interim measure, the licence can be

returned back to the licence holder concerned.

9.However, if the enquiry is commenced and completed as contemplated

under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the power is vested with

the Regional Transport Officer concerned to verify whether any of the provisions

of the Act as well as the Rules were violated by the licence holder, then the

punishment of either suspending the licence or even to revoke the licence can

very well be decided. In fact, this has been reiterated in my order dated

07.09.2021 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

10.In the present case, on perusal of the impugned order, the respondent,

after completing the enquiry has found that because of the rash and negligent

driving on the part of the petitioner, that accident had taken place. Therefore, as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) No.14712 of 2015

per section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is liable to be inflicted with

the punishment of suspension of licence and accordingly, licence of the petitioner

was suspended from 23.01.2015 to 22.07.2015 for six months period.

11.As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate appearing

for the respondent, six months suspension period was undergone by the petitioner

and it was over as early as in the year 2015.

12.Even on merits also, nothing is wrong in stating the reason, which was

found out by the respondent, only after completing the enquiry, under Section 19

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, ultimately, the punishment of

suspending the licence of the petitioner was imposed against the petitioner.

Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the said impugned order. Accordingly

it is to be sustained.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) No.14712 of 2015

13.In the result, this Writ Petition fails, hence, it is dismissed. However,

there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous

Petition is closed.

07.10.2021

Index : Yes / No gbg/sm

To

The Licensing Authority, (The Regional Transport Officer), The Regional Transport Office, Srirangam, Trichy.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) No.14712 of 2015

R.SURESH KUMAR,J.

gbg/sm

Order made in W.P.(MD) No.14712 of 2015

Dated:

07.10.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/