SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
ABHAY S. RAJEEV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA NO. 2811 OF 2025 | W.P.(C) NO.38332 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.KALAM PASHA, SMT.VISHAKHA J., SMT.HASNA ASHRAF T.A, SHRI.ANANDU U.R
For the Respondents: SRI. T. K. VIPINDAS

Judicial interference in administrative show cause notices is limited; relevant authorities should adjudicate merits before courts engage.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 16 - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 - Notice issued for revocation of driving licence based on allegations of misconduct - Appellant seeks to quash notice citing violation of rights - Courts generally refrain from intervening in show cause notices absent clear jurisdictional flaws - Relevant law underscores that factual adjudication should occur before licensing authority. (Paras 11, 13, 14)

(B) Jurisdiction - The authority of the Regional Transport Officer to issue a show cause notice under Section 16 is affirmed, and the merits of the case must be raised before the competent authority, not in a writ petition.

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought to quash a notice for revocation of his driving licence, stemming from serious allegations against him. He sought judicial intervention based on perceived violations of fundamental rights and procedural errors regarding the notice.

Findings of Court:
The Court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations but concluded that the matter should be determined by the relevant authority rather than through judicial intervention.

Issues: The primary issues were the legality of the notice issued under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act and whether the show cause notice can be adjudicated within a writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that intervening in an ongoing administrative process such as license revocation is premature, emphasizing that factual issues should be resolved by the licensing authority. The appellant must pursue alternative remedies before any judicial review is warranted.

Result: The appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations against appellant leading to license revocation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments presented on merits of case. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court affirms authority of regional transport officer regarding notice. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. final decision on the appeal. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.38332 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 notice dated 22.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub Regional Transport Office, Vaikom, and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent not to take any further steps pursuant to Ext.P11 or on the basis of the reports of the 2nd respondent Station House Officer, Ettumanoor Police Station.

2. The appellant-petitioner is the holder of driving licence bearing No.KL36 20180002278 issued from the office of the Sub Regional Transport Office, Vaikom. He was issued with Ext.P11 notice dated 22.08.2025 by the 3rd respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer in the Sub Regional Transport Office, Vaikom, the Licensing Authority. Ext.P11 notice was in continuation of a show cause notice dated 03.06.2025 issued by the Licensing Authority, invoking the provisions under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , for revoking the driving licence of the petitioner, on the ground stated therein. The said show cause notice was issued in connection with an incident that happened on 20.03.2025, while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-05/BA-3253. In connection with the said incident, which alleged to have occurred on 20.03.2025 at 6.00 p.m. near the private bus stand, Ettumanoor, a crime has been registered against the appellant-petitioner as Crime No.379 of 2025 of Ettumanoor Police Station, as evident from Ext.P3 First Information Report dated 20.03.2025, alleging an offence punishable under Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. Regarding the very same incident, Crime No.390 of 2025 of Ettumanoor Police Station has been registered against the appellant-petitioner, as evident from Ext.P4 First Information Report dated 24.03.2025, based on the First Information Statement given by the driver of a stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-05/AM-9018 alleging an offence punishable under Section 296(b), 351/1 and 118 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of wound certificate dated 20.03.2025 issued from the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, regarding the injuries sustained by the appellant-petitioner on account of an alleged assault by police near Ettumanoor bus stand on 20.03.2025. Ext.P2 is a copy of the out-patient ticket dated 20.03.2025 issued from the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The document marked as Ext.P5 is a video clipping evidencing the alleged custodial assault and Ext.P6 is a video clipping of the news report that appeared on Asianet News on 08.09.2025 regarding the said incident. Ext.P7 is a copy of an affidavit dated 14.05.2025 sworn to by a Psychiatrist of Metro Mind Centre for Neuropsychiatry, Kalamassery. Ext.P8 is a copy of order dated 21.08.2025 in O.P.No.161 of 2025 of the Advisory Board under the Kerala Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, whereby the externment order dated 14.07.2025 passed against the appellant-petitioner, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range, under Section 15 (1)(b) of the said Act considering Crime No.1266 of 2019 of Kottayam West Police Station, Crime No.155 of 2024 of Chingavanam Police Station and Crime No.390 of 2025 of Ettumanoor Police Station (Ext.P4 FIR), was annulled under (2) of the said Act, for the reasons stated by the Advisory Board in Ext.P8 order. Ext.P9 is a copy of complaint dated 01.09.2025 made by the appellant-petitioner before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottayam alleging custod

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top