IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 16-9-2010 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.18042 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 W.P.No.18490 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 W.P.No.18042 of 2010 A. Sekar ... Petitioner Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur South ... Respondent
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records on the files of the respondent in Proceedings No.19246/E3/2010 dated 6.7.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondent to return the driving licence to the petitioner forthwith.
W.P.No.18490 of 2010 P. Ganapathy ... Petitioner Vs. The Licensing Authority-cum- Regional Transport Officer, Hosur ... Respondent
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records in Proceedings No.22294/E3/2010, dated 28.5.2010 passed by the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner in : Mr.A.Ganesan
W.P.No.18042/2010
For Petitioner in : Mr.T.Arulraj
W.P.No.18490/2010
For Respondent in : Mr.R.Thirugnanam,
both writ petitions Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
Both these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners aggrieved over the suspension of their driving licence from 6.7.2010 to 5.1.2011 and 13.5.2010 to 12.11.2010 respectively.
2. Petitioner in W.P.No.18042 of 2010 is the holder of driving licence to drive light and heavy vehicles. He is having a badge, which is valid upto 20.7.2011. He is working as driver of a private vehicle in Kangeyam. While he was driving the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-30-T-1071 from Mathur Velapalayam to Kangeyam on 22.5.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident at about 6.15 a.m. at Bungalow Thottam near Puralipalayam to Muthur Four roads. The said accident was reported to the Vellakoil Police Station and a criminal case was registered in Crime No.1034 of 2010 on the same day. He was arrested by the Police and vehicle was also seized. On 23.5.2010 the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kangeyam inspected the vehicle and the petitioner’s driving licence was seized and handed over to the respondent. On 25.5.2010, petitioner requested to return the driving licence. A show cause notice was issued on 14.6.2010 stating as to why the driving licence issued should not be suspended under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Petitioner submitted his reply on 6.7.2010. Not satisfied with the said reply, petitioner’s driving licence is temporarily suspended from 6.7.2010 to 5.1.2011, which is challenged in this writ petition.
3. W.P.No.18490 of 2010 is filed by the driver of the Transport Corporation, who committed accident while driving the Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-N-1494 for a trip from Hosur to Sulagiri on 13.5.2010 at about 6.40 p.m. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.173 of 2010 under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC. Due to the said accident the respondent issued a show cause notice as to why the petitioner’s driving licence should not be suspended. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.6.2010 and after considering the same the impugned order was passed suspending the petitioner’s driving licence for six months from 13.5.210 to 12.11.2010.
4. The contentions raised in these writ petitions are that merely because criminal cases are registered against the petitioners and the same are pending, the driving licence issued to the petitioners cannot be suspended as the criminal Court has not yet given finding as to the guilt of the petitioners regarding rash and negligent driving and commission of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R.
5. The respective learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suspension of the driving licence can be ordered only under Section 21 or 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on conviction of the holder of the licence. The impugned orders in these cases are passed by the respondents under section 19(1) of the Act. The learned counsels relied on the Division bench decision of this Court reported in 2010 WLR 100 (P.Sethuram v. The Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office, Dindigul) in support of their contentions.
6. I have also heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.
7. The point for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the suspension orders issued by the Licensing Authority taking note of the registration of criminal complaint against the petitioners, who are involved in criminal cases for committing accident due to which one person died and one person sustained injury in W.P.No.18042 of 2010 and one person died in W.P.No.18490 of 2010, are sustainable ?
8. From the perusal of the F.I.R in both the cases it is evident that the criminal complaints are registered against the petitioners under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.18042 of 2010 and under sections 279 and 304A IPC against the petitioner in W.P.No.18490 of 2010. The respondents in these cases issued show cause notices to the petitioners on 14.6.2010 and 21.5.2010 respectively and called upon the petitioners to state as to why their respective licences cannot be suspended. The petitioners have submitted their individual explanation to the show cause notice issued and explained the facts leading to the respective accident. The respondent in these cases considered the said explanation and thought fit to suspend the driving licence of the petitioners for a period mentioned in the impugned orders, i.e., for six months. The said orders are passed under section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
9. Section 19 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:
“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
(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 learners 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.
(2) Where an order under sub-section (1) is made, the holder of a driving licence shall forthwith surrender his driving licence to the licensing authority making the order, if the driving licence has not already been surrendered, and the licensing authority shall,
(a) if the driving licence is a driving licence issued under this Act, keep it until the disqualification has expired or has been removed; or
(b) if it is not a driving licence issued under this Act, endorse the disqualification upon it and send it to the licensing authority by which it was issued; or
(c) in the case of revocation of any licence, endorse the revocation upon it and if it is not the authority which issued the same, intimate the fact of revocation to the authority which issued that licence:
Provided that where the driving licence of a person authorises him to drive more than one class or description of motor vehicles and the order, made under sub-section (1), disqualifies him from driving any specified class or description of motor vehicles, the licensing authority shall endorse the disqualification upon the driving licence and return the same to the holder.
(3) Any person aggrieved by an order made by a licensing authority under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, appeal to the prescribed authority, and such appellate authority shall give notice to the licensing authority and hear either party if so required by that party and may pass such order as it thinks fit and an order passed by any such appellate authority shall be final.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
From the perusal of the above said section it could be seen that driving licence can be suspended for a specified period in any one of the contingencies. Section 19(1)(d) is attracted in these cases as the petitioners’ previous conduct as drivers show that their driving is likely to be attended with danger to the public. Section 19(1)(f) states that if a person has committed any such act, which is likely to cause nuisance and danger to public, it is a ground to pass the order of suspension or to disqualify a person for a specified period from holding or obtaining a driving licence.
10. The person accused of the accident must prove the fact of not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in departmental proceedings in terms of the principles of ‘res ipsa loquitor’ and the said issue is settled by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2005) 3 SCC 241 (Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G.Thirugnanasambandam) (paragraphs 20 to 22 and 26). In the decision reported in (1997) 8 SCC 770 (M.C.Mehta v. Union of India) the Supreme Court held that the claim of any right by an individual or even a group of persons cannot override and must be subordinate to the larger public interest. In para 12 it is held that ‘the requirement of maintaining the motor vehicles in the manner prescribed and its use if roadworthy in a manner which does not endanger the public, has to be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of these provisions enacted in the Act.’ The said view is reiterated in the decision reported in (2009) 3 SCC 634 (U.P.SRTC v. Commissioner of Police (Traffic)).
11. Section 21 of the Act deals with suspension of the driving licence in certain cases and Section 22 deals with suspension or cancellation of driving licence on conviction. The petitioners are involved in criminal cases of rash and negligent driving of vehicles due to which one person each died. In the impugned order nothing is mentioned about their previous conviction. Hence the provisions contained in Sections 21 and 22 are not attracted in these cases. The only provision available to proceed against the petitioners to suspend their driving licence is for any one of the violations mentioned in clause (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 19.
12. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2010 WLR 100 (cited supra), while deciding the issue of suspension of the driving licence held that suspending a licence has got civil consequences. Therefore only after issuing show cause notice an order could be passed. In the said case no show cause notice was issued and without mentioning the commission of a cognisable offence, the suspension order was passed. Therefore this Court held that the said order was passed without due application of mind.
13. In the cases on hand, as already stated, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and the petitioners’ representations and objections were also considered, apart from giving opportunity to the petitioners to appear in person in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.18042 of 2010. The offence alleged against the petitioners are also taken note of by the respondent and death of one person each in these writ petitions and thereafter it was thought fit to suspend the driving licence of the petitioners for a period of six months. The said orders are passed based on public interest and to prevent danger to public, bearing in mind the prevention such accident by the petitioners for certain period viz., six months. Therefore the provisions contained in section 19(1)(f) empowers the respondent in these cases to pass the impugned orders, i.e, to prevent danger to the public.
14. It is the fact that number of accidents and death due to the accidents are increasing year after year due to several factors, including careless and indisciplined driving; drunken driving; using cell phone while driving; sleepy driving; etc. The statistics available regarding road accidents from 1993 to 2009 in the State of Tamil Nadu are as follows:
“GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
State Transport Authority
ROAD ACCIDENT DATA FROM 1993 TO 2009
TAMIL NADU
————————————————————————————————————————
YEAR Fatal Grevious Injury Minor Injury Non-Injury Total N.A N.P.K N.A N.P.I N.A N.P.I N.A Accidents 1993 6528 7349 3562 5100 17957 27226 6878 34925 1994 7027 7798 4199 6091 18950 28789 6861 37037 1995 7974 8773 4440 6380 21661 31922 7610 41685 1996 8079 9028 4474 7383 22151 31198 7493 42197 1997 7947 8755 4542 6567 23362 34010 8352 44203 1998 8510 9801 6562 8525 23862 33970 7789 46723 1999 8734 9653 5276 7287 27231 34157 6845 48086 2000 8269 9300 5278 8496 29137 44910 6239 48923 2001 8579 9571 5442 8354 30963 45928 6994 51978 2002 9012 9939 5830 8697 32183 46433 6478 53503 2003 8393 9275 5163 8557 31600 46685 5869 51025 2004 8733 9507 4875 7642 33222 49641 5678 52508 2005 8844 9760 5214 7815 34669 54152 5151 53878 2006 10055 110 09 4630 6833 36262 57508 4198 55145 2007 11034 12036 4498 6873 39494 64226 4114 59140 2008 11813 12784 4426 6696 39193 63555 4977 60409 2009 12727 13746 4448 6721 39676 63783 3943 60794
————————————————————————————————————————
N A : No of Acci ents
N P K : No of persons killed
N P I : No of persons Injured
Source: DGP, Chennai”
The number of road accidents and the causes for such accidents during the year 2009 in the state of Tamil Nadu are as follows:
“Government of Tamil Nadu
State Transport Authority
NUMBER OF ROAD ACCIDENTS ACCORDING TO CAUSES
DURING THE YEAR 2009 (FROM JANUARY ‘2009 TO DECEMBER ‘2009)
State : TAMIL NADU
————————————————————————————————————————
NUMBER OF ROAD ACCIDENTS ACCORDING TO CAUSES
———————————————————————————————————————–
Types of Causes Fatal Grevious Minor Non Total Injury Injury Injury Accidents N.A N.P.K N.A N.P.I N.A N.P.I N.A
————————————————————————————————————————
Fault of Driver 11494 12438 4091 6216 35636 57593 3731 54952 Fault of Passenger Other than Driver 261 287 73 94 857 1202 64 1255 Fault of Pedestrian 464 479 150 187 1695 2561 20 2329 Fault of Mechanical Defect 103 108 38 56 446 697 34 621 Bad Road 117 121 46 86 404 647 47 614 Bad Weather 9 13 6 6 65 109 8 88 Others 279 300 44 76 573 974 39 935 Total 12727 13746 4448 6721 39676 63783 3943 60794
————————————————————————————————————————
N A-NO. OF ACCIDENTS.
N P K – NO. OF PERSONS KILLED.
N P I – NO. OF PERSONS INJURED
Source: DGP, Chennai”
The above data indicate gradual increase of fatal and grievous injury accidents. The percentage of accidents caused by the drivers’ negligence is 90.31%. Thus, strict implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is the present day requirement not only at the time of issuing driving licence, but also even after the licence is issued.
15. The Division Bench judgment cited supra nowhere states that unless a person is convicted by a criminal court no suspension of licence be ordered. The said judgment only states that prior to the order of suspension notice shall be given to the licensee and his objection shall be considered. The said procedure is stated in Section 19(1) of the Act. Strict implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the authorities concerned will have deterrent effect on the drivers in future and definitely they will be careful in future, which will in turn minimise the number of accidents. Therefore it should be treated as a right decision by the authorities concerned.
16. Since the petitioners are involved in criminal case for the commission of accident, due to which one person each died, the order passed by the respondent in these writ petitions suspending the licence of the petitioners for a period of six months after issuing notice and considering their explanation are declared valid and there is no illegality in the said orders.
There are no merits in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
vr
To
1. The Regional Transport Officer,
Tiruppur South
2. The Licensing Authority-cum-
Regional Transport Officer,
Hosur