Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 33717
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
Ravi.P – Appellant
Versus
The Licensing Authority – Respondent
WP(MD)/573/2023
The Licensing Authority must provide the holder of a driving license with an opportunity of personal hearing before disqualifying or revoking the license.
Headnote:
DRIVING LICENSE - SUSPENSION - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - The Licensing Authority must record detailed reasons in writing after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the concerned holder of the driving license for having arrived at the conclusion to either discharge or disqualify him from holding the driving license.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, met with an accident while on duty. The police seized his driving license and forwarded it to the Licensing Authority. The Licensing Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and after receiving his explanation, suspended his license for 6 months under Section 19(1)(d) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Licensing Authority did not consider the petitioner's explanation or provide him with an opportunity of personal hearing before suspending his license. The court also held that the Licensing Authority cannot suspend a license for a period beyond three months for a first offense under Section 19(1-A)(a) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the Licensing Authority considered the petitioner's explanation before suspending his license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 19(1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires the Licensing Authority to give the holder of a driving license an opportunity of being heard before disqualifying or revoking the license.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Licensing Authority for fresh consideration. The Licensing Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's explanation, provide him with an opportunity of personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of seizure of the driving license.
W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023
and W.M.P. (MD) No. 572 of 2023
P.Ravi
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Licensing Authority,
Regional Transport Office (RTO),
Transport Department,
Srirangam,
Trichy District.
... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the Respondent in
Show Cause No. TN-48/2022/742 dated 26.10.2022 and quash the same and
direct the respondent to return back the petitioner's Original Driving Licence
bearing DL.No. TN04 19861001133 within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble
Court.
For Petitioner
:
Mr. K.Gokul
For Respondent
:
Mr. K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023
O R D E R
Heard Mr. K.Gokul, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. K.S.Selvaganesan, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings
of the parties.
2.
The Petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Ltd., Perambalur Region, and while on duty, the bus bearing
Registration No. TN-45-N-3461 driven by him had on 17.09.2022 met with an
accident. The Police Officer, who is investigating that accident, had on
20.09.2022 collected the driving licence of the Petitioner and forwarded it to
Respondent, who is the Licensing Authority. Thereafter, the Respondent issued a
show cause notice dated 26.09.2022 seeking explanation for the said fatal
accident and after receipt of explanation dated 07.10.2022 from him, by
proceedings in Show Cause No. TN 48/2022/742 dated 26.10.2022 in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 19(1)(d) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) read with Rule 21 of the Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, suspended the licence of the Petitioner for the period
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023
from 18.09.2022 to 18.03.2023 (6 months), which is challenged in this Writ
Petition.
3.
The primordial attack on the impugned order by Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner is that though the Petitioner has submitted his explanation in response
to the show cause notice, neither it has been considered nor any opportunity of
personal hearing has been afforded to the Petitioner, before passing the impugned
order entailing adverse civil consequences to him.
4.
In this context, it must be noticed that certain amendments have been made
to the Act, which have come into force from 01.09.2019 onwards and clause (4)
in Section 206 and clause (1-A) in Section 19 have been inserted to the Act that
have bearing to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition, and read as follows:-
"206. Power of police officer to impound document:-
....
(4)
A police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by
the State Government shall, if he has reason to believe that the
driver of a motor vehicle has committed, an offence under any of
Sections 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194-C, 194-D or 194-E, seize the
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 573 of 2023
driving licence held by such driver and forward it to the licensing
authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under
Section 19:
Provided that the person seizing the licence shall give to the
person surrendering the licence a temporary acknowledgement
therefor, but such acknowledgement shall not authorise the holder
to drive until the licence has been returned to him."
"19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a
driving licence or revoke such licence:-
....
(1-A) Where a licence has been forwarded to the licensing
authority under sub-section (4) of Sect
