Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1923
MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Banumathi, B. Rajendran, JJ.
S. Krishnan
Versus
Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office (Madurai North), Madurai
W.A. (MD) No. 783 of 2008 and M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2008
Decided On : 17 April 2012
S. Arunachalam, for Appelant
A. Muthukaruppan, Additional Government Pleader, for Respondent
The court established that the suspension of a driving license under Section 19(1)(c) can be justified based on the commission of a cognizable offense, irrespective of the status of the criminal case.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Suspension of Driving Licence - Section 19(1) - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a bus driver, was involved in an accident resulting in the death of a passenger. His driving license was suspended for six months based on an FIR and his explanation was deemed unacceptable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension of the driving license was justified under Section 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the accident resulted in a cognizable offense. The court also held that the appellant had the opportunity to appeal the decision but failed to do so.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of suspending the driving license based on an ongoing criminal case without a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority can suspend a driving license under Section 19(1)(c) if satisfied that a cognizable offense was committed, regardless of the status of the criminal case. The court also emphasized the importance of strict implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act to address the high number of accidents caused by driver negligence.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted eight weeks to file an appeal before the appropriate authority.
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
1. The writ appeal has been filed as against the order dated 24.10.2008 made in W.P. No. 8204 of 2008.
2. According to the appellant who is the driver working in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. He was driving the bus between Anna bus Stand and Palamedu on 12.8.2008 at about 5.45 p.m. when the bus reached a bus stop called Ayyer Bungalow stop the passengers got down from the bus and also boarded the bus. According to the appellant, when he was about to start the bus from the above said bus stop, the passengers of the bus told him that an aged woman passenger fell down on the road from the front side steps of the bus. Immediately, he stopped the vehicle and the said aged woman passenger was found no serious injury and in conscious stage and took her to the hospital. Later on, after seven days, he was told that she was died. According to him, the accident happened not due to any fault on his part but an F.I.R. was registered against him under Section 304 A I.P.C. Subsequently, on 12.8.2008 the police got his driving licence and the same was entrusted to the respondent and thereafter he was issued with a show-cause notice asking him to submit explanation as to why action should not be taken against suspension of driving licence for the above said accident. For the above said show-cause notice, he had submitted his explanation on 26.8.2008 stating that he was not responsible for the accident and the criminal case was not yet over and therefore, he requested the respondent to drop the proceedings against him. After submission of the explanation, the impugned order dated 2.9.2008 was passed suspending his driving licence for a period of six months from 26.8.2008 to 25.2.2009. According to him, the order is per se illegal as the respondent has not followed the Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the order itself passed solely on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Police which is only the investigation and the criminal case has not come to an end. No charge sheet at that time was filed and of course he also would contend that this order is passed without jurisdiction. Challenging the impugned order he filed a Writ of certiorarified mandamus. The said Writ Petition was stoutly contested by the respondent and the learned Judge has dismissed the same on the ground that all the ingredients of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been followed, especially, the order has been passed under Section 19(1) (c) as there is no embargo that the suspension could be done only after the conviction in the criminal Court. Further, the learned single Judge held that there is an appeal provision as provided under Section 19(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and without availing alternative remedy the appellant has straightaway come to this Court with the present writ petition hence, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Aggrieved against the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed.
3. We have heard both parties.
4. The main ground of attack of the appellant was that the impugned order suspending the driving licence for a period of six months is no basis at all as it is passed merely on the basis of an F.I.R when admittedly a criminal case has not ended convicting him of any offence at that stage. He would also contend that the impugned order was passed based on the report of the Investigation Officer. He would contend that there is no provision under Section 19(1) of the Act to suspend the driving licence before ever he being indicted of the offence. In this connection, it is worthwhile to extract Section 19(1) (c), 2(a) and (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as under:
“19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence: (1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he -
(a)...
(b).
