The power conferred by Section 17(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to disqualify a person for holding a driving license can be exercised even in cases where the contravention is of a rule relating to the mere conduct of the driver.

JUDGMENT - Chandrachud, JJ.

1. In Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 52 of 1971 (Bom) Vaidya, J. took the view that the power conferred by Section 17(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein, "the act") to disqualify a person for holding a driving licence cannot be exercised in cases where the contravention is of a rule relating to the mere conduct of the driver. Bhasme, J., also sitting singly, took the same view in Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 1142 of 1970 (Bom).

2.A similar question arose before the learned Chief Justice in Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 1101 of 1970. He was inclined to a different view and therefore he has referred for our decision the question as regards the correctness of the two earlier decisions. In his referring judgment on July 16, 1971, the learned Chief Justice has expressed the opinion that the power conferred by Section 17 (1) to suspend a driving licence is exercisable even where the conviction is for the breach of a rule governing the conduct of the driver.

3.Only a few facts are relevant. The petitioner is a taxi driver and the prosecution arose out of his refusal to drive the complainant to the desired destination. The complainant got into the taxi when the meter flag was in a vertical position but rather than take him where he wanted to go, the petitioner held him by his legs and threatened to throw him out. For this, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Presidency Magistrate under Section 112 of the Act read with Rule 26 (34) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, (hereinafter called "The Rules"). This rule provides that "No driver shall without reasonable excuse refuse to let the cab for hire when the flag is in a vertical position". The Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and under Section 17 (1) he suspended the petitioners driving licence for a period of two months.

4.The learned Chief Justice has confirmed the order of conviction and the sentence of fine. He was also included to confirm the order of suspension but he felt that he could not differ from the view taken by Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction. He has therefore referred for our consideration the question as regards the correctness of that view.

5.Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two preliminary objections to the reference made by the learned Chief Justice. Counsel says that two single Judges having taken the same view, their judgments are on a part with the judgment of Division Bench and therefore the learned Chief Justice had no power to differ from the view taken by the "Division Bench" and refer the matter to another Division Bench. This objection is untenable. One plus one equals two is plain arithmetic but you cannot roll two judgments of two single Judges into one and give to those judgments the authority of the judgment of a Division Bench. This novel method will bring into being a new class of privileged judgments of "Division Benches", "Full Benches" and "Special Benches" - unknown to the law of precedents. The objection is devoid of merit.

6.Of no different variety is the second preliminary objection that the question referred to us cannot possibly arise as Section 17 (1) of the Act offends against Article 20 (2) of the Constitution. Article 20 (2) provides that no person shall be "prosecuted and punished" for the same offence more than once. Even assuming that the suspension of the petitioners licence is punishment within the meaning of Article 20 (2), the petitioner has not been prosecuted for the same offence more than once. It is in the prosecution that he is being fined and disqualified for holding a licence. Therefore, this objection must also fail.

7.The question for consideration is whether the power of the Court to disqualify a person for holding a driving licence extends to cases in which the conviction is recorded under S. 112 of the Act for the breach of a Rule made under the Act.

8.Section 17 (1) of the Act is in these terms :-

"17. Power of Court to Disqualify - (1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document