P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

Ext.P2 order by which the driving licence of the petitioner has been revoked, and Ext.P10 order confirming Ext.P2 order in appeal, are under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner was the driver of a stage carriage. The stage carriage driven by the petitioner met with an accident causing injuries to several persons, of which six succumbed to their injuries. The petitioner was consequently charge sheeted under Sections 324, 326, 308 and 304 of Indian Penal Code and the case is pending. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent revoked the driving licence of the petitioner, invoking his powers under Section 19(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act). Ext.P2 is the order passed by the fourth respondent in this connection. Though the petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order in appeal, the third respondent confirmed Ext.P2 order, as per Ext.P10 order. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P10 orders.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Special Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the licence of the petitioner has been revoked merely on account of the registration of the case against him and that the power under Section 19(1) of the Act cannot be invoked on that ground. Relying on a decision of the Madras High Court, it was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power under the said section cannot be invoked before the culmination of the criminal case. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at any rate, the licence of the petitioner should not have been revoked especially when even the court authorised to try the case registered against the petitioner is empowered only to disqualify the petitioner from holding the licence for a specified period. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that the power of the criminal court to disqualify a person from holding licence or revoke the licence and the power of the licensing authority under Section 19(1) of the Act operate on different spheres and therefore, there is no need for the licensing authority to wait till the culmination of the criminal case for exercising power under Section 19(1) of the Act.

5. Section 19(1) of the Act, to the extent relevant, reads thus:

Section 19(1): If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he-

xxx xxx

xxx xxx

(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

xxx xxx

xxx xxx

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.

It is evident from the said statutory provision that the power under Section 19(1)(f) of the Act can be invoked, if it is established that the licensee has committed an act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government. The prescription of the Central Government is contained in Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the Rules). The said Rule reads thus:

"21. Powers of licensing authority to disqualify.- For the purpose of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 19, the commission of the following acts by a holder of a driving licence shall constitute nuisance or danger to the public, namely:-

1. Theft of motor vehicle.

2. Assault on passengers.

3. Theft of personal effects of passengers.

4. Theft of goods carried in goods carriages.

5. Transport of goods prohibited under any law.

6. Driver while driving a transport vehicle, engages himself in activity which is likely to disturb his concentration.

7. Abduction of passengers.

8. Carrying overload in goods carriages.

9. Driving