2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 14466
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sachin Datta, J
DEEPAK – Appellant
Versus
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT – Respondent
W.P.(C)-2487/2019
Advocates:
Mr. Roshan Santhalia, Adv., Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC, Ms. Sheenu Priya, Mr. Atik Gill, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Shukla, Mr. Sudhir, Advs.
The licensing authority must provide a hearing before suspending a driving licence, as mandated by Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Suspension of driving licence - The petitioner challenged the suspension order dated 10.04.2017, asserting that no opportunity for a hearing was provided prior to the suspension, violating principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the licensing authority must afford a hearing before disqualification or suspension as per Section 19(1). (Paras 2, 4, 9)
(B) Natural Justice - The court reiterated that the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative actions affecting rights. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s driving licence was suspended without a show cause notice or hearing following an alleged traffic violation on 20.03.2017.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner’s claims, ruling that the suspension order was invalid due to non-compliance with statutory procedures.
Issues: The main issues were whether the suspension order was valid given the lack of a hearing and show cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the licensing authority must provide an opportunity for a hearing before suspending a driving licence, as mandated by Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Result: The suspension order dated 10.04.2017 is set aside.
SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the suspension order dated 10.04.2017, passed by the Transport Department with regard to driving license No.DL-0820010231375.
2. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , the power conferred upon the Licencing Authority viz. to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence or to revoke/suspend his licence, must be exercised after giving an opportunity of hearing to the holder of the driving licence. In this regard, attention is drawn to the express stipulation in Section 19(1), which is as under:
- “Section 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-

W.P.(C) 2487/2019 Page 2 of 5 (a) is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard; or
- (b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or
- (c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence; or
- (d) has by his previous conduct as driver of a motor vehicle shown that his driving is likely to be attended with danger to the public; or
- (e) has obtained any driving licence or a licence to drive a particular class or description of motor vehicle by fraud or misrepresentation; or
- (f) has committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, having regard to the objects of this Act; or
- (g) has failed to submit to, or has not passed, the tests referred to in the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 22; or
- (h) being a person under the age of eighteen years who has been granted a learner’s licence or a driving licence with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the holder of the licence and has ceased to be in such care, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order- (i) disqualifying that person for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence; or
- ii) revoke any such licence.”
3. It is submitted that no show cause notice, much less any hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to suspension of the driving licence of the petitioner.
4. In Ashish Gosain v. Department of Transport , (2016) 230 DLT 177 , this Court has set out the procedure that is required to be followed by the Transport Department before passing a suspension order under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as under:
- “8.2. The directions issued by the Supreme Court Committee on the Road Safety for suspension of licence for a period of not less than three months under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act in cases of driving at excessive speed, overloading, drunken driving and using mobile phone while driving, warrant strict implementation by Delhi Police as well as

8.2.1. A valid show cause notice giving the particulars of the violation i.e. date, time and place, reference to relevant provisions violated and the directions of the Supreme Court Committee on the Road Safety.
8.2.2. An opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .
8.2.3. The suspension order containing reasons in terms of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.”
5. The Court also set out the procedure formulated by the Delhi Police and the Transport Department itself, as under:
- “8.3.1. In cases of violations specified in the directions of the Supreme Court Committee on the Road Safety, the concerned police officer/enforcement officer shall seize the driving licence for initiating proceedings for suspension of licence under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicl


Click Here to Read the rest of this document