Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4094
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
A. Sekar & Others
Versus
The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur & Others
W.P. No. 18042 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010 & W.P. No. 18490 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided On : 16-09-2010
For the Petitioners:A. Ganesan, T. Arulraj, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R. Thirugnanam, Special Government Pleader.
The court emphasized the need for strict implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to minimize accidents and upheld the validity of the suspension orders under Section 19(1)(d) and (f).
Headnote:
Driving Licence Suspension - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 19
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' driving licenses were suspended due to their involvement in accidents resulting in criminal cases. They challenged the suspension, arguing that their licenses cannot be suspended until the criminal court finds them guilty of rash and negligent driving.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension orders were valid under Section 19(1)(d) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the petitioners' previous conduct as drivers showed that their driving was likely to be attended with danger to the public. The court also emphasized the need for strict implementation of the Act to minimize accidents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suspension orders based on the registration of criminal complaints against the petitioners were sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension orders were valid under Section 19(1)(d) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and emphasized the importance of strict implementation of the Act to minimize accidents.
Final Decision: The court declared the suspension orders valid and dismissed the writ petitions.
1. Both these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners aggrieved over the suspension of their driving licence from 6.7.2010 to 5.1.2011 and 13.5.2010 to 12.11.2010 respectively.
2. Petitioner in W.P.No.18042 of 2010 is the holder of driving licence to drive light and heavy vehicles. He is having a badge, which is valid upto 20.7.2011. He is working as driver of a private vehicle in Kangeyam. While he was driving the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-30-T-1071 from Mathur Velapalayam to Kangeyam on 22.5.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident at about 6.15 a.m. at Bungalow Thottam near Puralipalayam to Muthur Four roads. The said accident was reported to the Vellakoil Police Station and a criminal case was registered in Crime No.1034 of 2010 on the same day. He was arrested by the Police and vehicle was also seized. On 23.5.2010 the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kangeyam inspected the vehicle and the petitioners driving licence was seized and handed over to the respondent. On 25.5.2010, petitioner requested to return the driving licence. A show cause notice was issued on 14.6.2010 stating as to why the driving licence issued should not be suspended under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Petitioner submitted his reply on 6.7.2010. Not satisfied with the said reply, petitioners driving licence is temporarily suspended from 6.7.2010 to 5.1.2011, which is challenged in this writ petition.
3. W.P.No.18490 of 2010 is filed by the driver of the Transport Corporation, who committed accident while driving the Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-N-1494 for a trip from Hosur to Sulagiri on 13.5.2010 at about 6.40 p.m. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.173 of 2010 under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC. Due to the said accident the respondent issued a show cause notice as to why the petitioners driving licence should not be suspended. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.6.2010 and after considering the same the impugned order was passed suspending the petitioners driving licence for six months from 13.5.210 to 12.11.2010.
4. The contentions raised in these writ petitions are that merely because criminal cases are registered against the petitioners and the same are pending, the driving licence issued to the petitioners cannot be suspended as the criminal Court has not yet given finding as to the guilt of the petitioners regarding rash and negligent driving and commission of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R.
5. The respective learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suspension of the driving licence can be ordered only under Section 21 or 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on conviction of the holder of the licence. The impugned orders in these cases are passed by the respondents under section 19(1) of the Act. The learned counsels relied on the Division bench decision of this Court reported in 2010 WLR 100 (P.Sethuram v. The Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office, Dindigul) in support of their contentions.
6. I have also heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.
7. The point for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the suspension orders issued by the Licensing Authority taking note of the registration of criminal complaint against the petitioners, who are involved in criminal cases for committing accident due to which one person died and one person sustained injury in W.P.No.18042 of 2010 and one person died in W.P.No.18490 of 2010, are sustainable ?
8. From the perusal of the F.I.R in both the cases it is evident that the criminal complaints are registered against the petitioners under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.18042 of 2010 and under sections 279 and 304A IPC against the petitioner in W.P.No.18490 of 2010. The respondents in these cases issued show cause notices to the petitioners on 14.6.2010 and 21.5.2010 respectively and called upon t
