Madras High Court
L.Vinothkumar vs The Regional Transport Officer on 15 May, 2024
WP(MD). No.11131 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 15/05/2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
WP(MD). No.11131 of 2024
and WMP(MD) No.9911 of 2024
L.Vinothkumar ... Petitioner
v.
1.The Regional Transport Officer
The Regional Transport Office,
Srirangam, Trichy.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Ramjee Nagar Police Station,
Ramjee Nagar, Trichy District ... Respondents
PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records from the 1st respondent relating to his impugned order
dated 23.04.2024 passed in proceeding R.No.766/A2/2024 quash the
same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to return the petitioner's
driving license without any remarks.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Arunachalam
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ramesh for R1
Government Advocate
Mr.A.Albert James for R2
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD). No.11131 of 2024
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Arunachalam
learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondent No.1
and Mr.A.Albert James, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the
respondent No.2.
2.Challenging the order of disqualification disqualifying the
petitioner from holding the driving license from 08.03.2024 to
07.06.2024, this writ petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was a private transport bus driver and on 08.03.2024, while the petitioner
was driving the bus from Trichy bus stand to Dindigul, via Manapparai,
an accident had taken place, in which, a victim sustained injury,
subsequently he succumbed to the injuries, pursuant to which, an FIR
came to be registered in Crime No.40/2024 for offences under Sections
279 and 304(A) IPC on the file of the 2nd respondent and based on the
enquiry conducted under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a show cause notice was issued. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
immediately, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition
in WP(MD) No.7750/2024 challenging the show cause notice and this
Court, while disposing the said writ petition, directed the authorities to
furnish the required documents to the petitioner within 15 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order and directed the petitioner to give
reply to the said show cause notice within a period of 15 days thereafter
and pursuant to the said direction, after conducting enquiry, the order
impugned came to be passed by the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel would submit that in spite of the directions
issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and a request was made
by the petitioner through a representation, no documents whatsoever
were furnished to the petitioner and the final order came to be passed,
which is not valid in the eye of law. He would further submit that proper
enquiry was not conducted under Section 19(1) of the Act. To
substantiate his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in
P.Sethuraman v. The Licensing Authority, Dindigul ([2010] WLR
100).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the first
respondent would submit that based on the recommendation of the 2nd
respondent, proceeding under Section 19 of the Act was initiated and the
license was disqualified from 08.03.2024 to 07.06.2024. Hence, no
interference is warranted to the order impugned.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
7. Perusal of the impugned order would go to show that two letters
had been referred to by the first respondent in the impugned order,
wherein, a reference was made to the explanation of the petitioner dated
22.03.2024. Admittedly, representations dated 11.03.2024 and
20.03.2024 were sent to the first respondent, wherein, the petitioner has
sought for various documents for the purpose of submitting proper
explanation. It is also to be noted that this Court has also directed the
respondents to furnish all the documents in order to enable the petitioner
to give reply by fixing time limit. However, no documents whatsoever
were supplied to the petitioner as sought for by him. A perusal of the
order impugned also shows that there is no whisper about the explanation
given by the petitioner and the compliance of the order of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
When the petitioner has suffered disqualification from 08.03.2024 to
07.06.2024 and even though Section 19 of the Act empowers the
authority to disqualify a person for certain period, in this case, without
affording proper opportunity by defective enquiry and by violating
principles of natural justice, the impugned order came to be passed.
8. Since the petitioner has suffered disqualification as stated supra
for considerable period and it will end on 07.06.2024, I am of the view
that further remanding the matter for reconsideration of the first
respondent and ordering fresh enquiry will serve no purpose.
9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the disqualification
of the driving license from 08.03.2024 to 07.06.2024 is set aside. As a
sequel, the first respondent is directed to return/re-issue the driving
license of the petitioner forthwith as the case may be. No costs.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
15.05.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Regional Transport Officer
The Regional Transport Office,
Srirangam, Trichy.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Ramjee Nagar Police Station,
Ramjee Nagar, Trichy District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
RR
15.05.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
