The judgment emphasizes the need for proper evidence and application of mind by the licensing authority when invoking provisions for suspension of driving licenses.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records pertaining to the order date 27.06.2023 passed by the second respondent in show cause order No.TN23/2023/17 quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to return forth with petitioner original license bearing No.TN23Z19980002273 without any endorsement.)

1. The petitioner herein has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 27.06.2023 suspending the driving license of the petitioner from 19.05.2023 to 18.08.2023.

2.Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.Naveenkumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3. By consent of both the counsel, the Writ Petition is take up for final disposal.

3. The impugned order has been passed by the second respondent by invoking its power under Section 19 (1) (d) & (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The petitioner is working as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. On 17.05.2023 when the petitioner was driving a bus belonging to the said corporation, an accident had occurred. As a result of the accident, a rider of the two wheeler, who came in the opposite direction received a head injury and died. In this regard, the First Information Report filed against the petitioner in Crime No.117/2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruvalam Police Station, Vellore, under Sections 279 and 304(a) of IPC.

4.The first respondent seized the driving license of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the second respondent. The second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to explain as to why the driving license should not be cancelled under Section 19 (1) (d) & (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

5.The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that he was not at all responsible for the accident and the same had occurred only due to the negligent driving of the deceased. A criminal case filed against the petitioner is pending against. In the mean time, the second respondent passed the impugned order by invoking Section 19 (1) (d) & (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

6. Section 19 (1) (d) & (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads thus:

 “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-

....

....

(d) has by his previous conduct as drive of a motor vehicle shown that his driving is likely to be attended with danger to the public; or

(f) has committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, having regard to the objects of this Act;

7. Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which 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 holder of a driving licence shall continue 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 carriage.

(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 carr