Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 846
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
S.G. Lokesh Kumar
Versus
Appellate – Authority and joint commissioner of Transport Chennai South Range, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No.2712 of 2012
Decided On : 17-02-2012
For the Petitioner:V. Raghupathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, Additional Government Pleader (W).
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suspension of a driving licence must adhere to the procedures established by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard and recording reasons in writing before invoking the power under Section 19(1).
Headnote:
Driving Licence Suspension - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 19(1), Section 206(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 19(1) and Section 206(2), and their interpretation in relation to the suspension of a driving licence. The court emphasized the requirement of giving an opportunity of being heard to the holder of the licence and the need for reasons to be recorded in writing before invoking the power under Section 19(1). The court also highlighted the illegality of retaining a driving license without initiating proceedings under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's driving licence was suspended for six months following a fatal accident. The petitioner challenged the suspension, arguing that the procedures established by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were not followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension of the driving licence was in accordance with Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and had submitted an explanation. The court concluded that the suspension was valid and confirmed the orders of the first and second respondents.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the driving licence suspension and whether the procedures established by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension of the driving licence was in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before the suspension.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the driving licence suspension.
1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 30.12.2011, and the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 19.10.2011. The petitioner had also prayed for a direction to the second respondent to return the original driving licence, bearing No.TN 02200-80000755 to the petitioner.
3. It had been stated that the petitioner, who has a valid driving licence, was driving the Ford Fiesta Car bearing registration No.T.N.02-AB9336, owned by his father, on 31.7.2011. While so, a motor cycle, bearing registration No.TN.09-BD-7048, driven by a person with a pillion rider, had dashed against the car, at high speed, resulting in an accident, due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle. Latter, the person, who was driving the motor cycle, had died and the pillion rider had sustained injuries. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner had gone to Abiramapuram police station to lodge a complaint. The complaint, dated 2.8.2011, had been received by the third respondent police, who had also taken the original driving licence of the petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent, without submitting the driving licence of the petitioner, before the Judicial Magistrate concerned, had given it to the second respondent, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On 19.8.2011, the second respondent had asked the petitioner to submit his explanation. A detailed explanation, dated 26.8.2011, had been sent by the petitioner. However, the second respondent had passed an order, dated 19.10.2011, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner suspending the driving licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, from 19.10.2011 to 18.4.2012.
4. It had been stated that, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, dated 5.11.2011, to the first respondent, along with the necessary enclosures. The first respondent, by his order, dated 30.12.2011, had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, without considering the detailed reasons given by the petitioner and the grounds raised in the appeal. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the second respondent had suspended the driving licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, with effect from 19.10.2011, without following the procedures established by the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the second respondent had failed to consider the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner before passing the impugned order, dated 19.10.2011. No personal hearing had been given to the petitioner before his driving licence had been suspended.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the third respondent police, who had taken the driving licence from the petitioner, ought to have submitted the same before the competent court of law, as per Section 206(2) of the Act. However, he had submitted the driving licence of the petitioner to the second respondent, illegally. Further, no proper reasons had been given, either by the second respondent, in his proceedings, dated 19.10.2011, or in the order of the first respondent, dated 30.12.2011. The first and the second respondents had not considered the claim made by the petitioner that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the appellate authority had not considered all the grounds, while confirming the order passed by the second respondent, suspending the driving licence of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned pro
