The suspension of a driving license under Section 19 requires due process, including a hearing, which was not followed in this case.

ORDER

This writ petition is filed as against the impugned orders passed by the Regional Transport Officer / Licensing Authority concerned, in and by which, the driving licence of the petitioner was suspended under Section 19(1) (d)&(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is working as Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. While he was on duty as Driver, accident had occurred due to which, a case was registered as against the petitioner under Sections 281 and 106 (1) of BNS, 2023 and the respondent Police seized the driving license of the petitioner without giving any show cause to the petitioner and further forwarded the seized license to the Regional Transport Officers concerned, who in turn, has suspended the driving license of the petitioner. The case registered as against the petitioner is under investigation and not even charge sheet has been filed so far. While so, before even any decision is taken by the trial Court, the authorities came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty for the offences committed. The learned Counsel further submit that the Regional Transport Officer cannot act as a pre-judge to take decision on the guilt even before filing of charge sheet before the Court concerned and without even any materials. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Transport Authority submits that the petitioner is accused of the offence under Sections 281 and 106 (1) of BNS, 2023 and it is a cognizable offence. If any cognizable offence is committed, the authority after giving reasonable opportunity to the person concerned is empowered to suspend the license as per Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1981 read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Accordingly the petitioner was issued with show cause notice and being not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.

5.The petitioner is the Driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. While he was on duty in driving the bus, accident had occurred and a case was registered as against the petitioner under Sections 281 and 106 (1) of BNS, 2023 and subsequently his driving licence was suspended for a temporary period. The grievance of the petitioner is that before filing of any final report as against the petitioner, the authorities pre-judged that the petitioner has committed the offence and therefore, he is before this Court.

6.A Division Bench of this Court in [ P.Sethuraman Vs. The Licensing Authority , The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul] in 2010 Writ Law reporter 100 has held as under:

“8. A bare reading of Section 19(1) shows that the Licensing Authority has the power to revoke any licence or disqualify a person for a specified period from holding or obtaining a driving licence, if any of the contingencies prescribed in Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub Section (1) of arises. Moreover, the power under (1) can be invoked only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the holder of the licence and for reasons to be recorded in writing.

9. But in the case on hand, the licence of the appellant was impounded or retained by the police immediately after the accident. Thereafter, the respondent issued the show cause notice under Section 19(1) of the Act, after getting a report