Back
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. RAMANATHAN
P. Duraisamy
Versus
The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Periyakulam
W.P.(MD)No.6900 of 2009 & W.P.(MD)No.7905 of 2009 & M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009
Decided On :Decided On : 08-09-2009
Motor Vehicle Act - Suspension of Driving License - Section 19(1) - Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, drivers employed in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, challenged the suspension of their driving licenses following accidents. The respondent had issued show cause notices under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, and subsequently suspended the driving licenses for six months without providing reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders of suspension were passed without proper application of mind and without stating reasons, contrary to the requirements of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the suspension orders, the application of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, and the necessity for providing reasons for such suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension orders were invalid as they lacked proper reasoning and application of mind, as mandated by Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for such administrative decisions.
Final Decision: The impugned orders of suspension were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed. The respondent was given the liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry and pass orders with proper reasons. No costs were awarded.
Heard both sides.
2. W.P.(MD)No.6900 of 2009: The petitioner is a driver employed in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Periyakulam branch. In respect of an accident that took place on 01.07.2009, a case has been registered in Crime No.368 of 2009 u/s.304(A) of I.P.C., by the Periyakulam Police against the petitioner, who was the driver of that bus and the respondent has issued a show cause notice, dated 10.07.2009, under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, directing the petitioner to show cause why his license should not be suspended. The petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 13.07.2009 stating that he was not responsible for the accident. Nevertheless, the respondent, by his proceedings in R.No.24720/A5/2009, dated 13.07.2009, suspended the driving licence of the petitioner for a period of six months with effect from 13.07.2009 to 12.01.2010.
3. W.P.(MD)No.7905 of 2009: The petitioner is a driver employed in the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation and is working in the Karur Depot. In respect of an accident of which he was the driver of the bus that took place on 22.05.2009, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, dated 01.06.2009, under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, directing the petitioner to show cause why his driving licence should not be suspended. The petitioner submitted his reply on 07.07.2009 stating that he was not responsible for the accident. Nevertheless, the respondent passed the impugned order in Se.Mu.Aa.A.No.21217/B4/2009 dated .07.2009, suspending the driving licence of the petitioner for a period of six months with effect from 16.07.2009 to 15.01.2010.
4. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners challenged the order of suspension by the respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in both the writ petitions, submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would show that the Authority has not applied his mind and passed the order making in the printed format, without stating any reason why the explanation of the petitioner was not accepted.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of this Honourable Court made in W.P.(MD)No.1637 of 2009, in the case of K. Kottiyappan vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Periyakulam wherein this Court has deprecated the practice of issuing the order in the printed format. In that judgment it has been observed as follows:
"The impugned order is in the printed format. It has been filled up by the respondent wherever the occasion arises. This Court in several pronouncements had deprecated such practise by the authorities who has vested with quasi Judicial power to pass such orders using printed format had passed the present impugned order by filling up the said form. Moreover, from the impugned order it could be seen that the respondent has not assigned any reason why he has passed orders suspending the driving license for a period of six months invoking Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. No doubt, Section 19(1) contemplates revocation of the licence granted. But, however, the section makes it very clear that it can be done for the reasons to be recorded in writing and an order should be made to that effect. In the given case on hand as stated already no reasons has been assigned by the respondent why the driving licence has been suspended for a period of six months"
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied up on the Division Bench judgment of this Court made in W.A.(MD)No.339 of 2009, dated 24.07.2009 in the case of D. Edward Raj vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Madurai South, Madurai, wherein this Court has held in para 9 as follows:-
"A bare reading of Section 19(1) shows that the Licensing Authority has the power to revoke any licence or disqualify a person if any of the contingencies prescribed in Clauses (a) to (h) of S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
