{"id":12162,"date":"2011-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011"},"modified":"2017-08-24T20:01:17","modified_gmt":"2017-08-24T14:31:17","slug":"v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nDATED: 09\/09\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR\n\nW.P.(MD).No.10251 of 2011\n\nV.Rajendran\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nVs.\n\t\t\t\nThe Regional Transport Officer,\nThanjavur.\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to return\nback the petitioner's driving licence to the petitioner immediately, within the\nstipulated time.\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t... Mr.T.A.Ebenezer\n^For Respondent\t\t... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen\n\t\t\t    Additional Government Pleader\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
  ******
\n\t\tMandamus has been sought for directing the Regional Transport
\nOfficer, Thanjavur, to return the petitioner’s driving licence immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 30.05.2011, when he was
\non duty in a Transport Corporation Bus, an untoward accident occurred within
\nThanjavur Traffic Investigation Wing Police Limit, in which, a person injured
\nhad succumbed to death. An F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner under
\nSection 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Thanjavur Traffic
\nInvestigation Wing Police Station. The petitioner was released on bail and in
\nthe meantime, he was placed under suspension on 31.06.2011. The suspension was
\nrevoked on 25.07.2011 and that he was permitted to join duty vide order of the
\nGeneral Manager, dated 25.07.2011.  When the petitioner was taken to the police
\nstation, his licence was seized by the respondent. Hence, he has filed the
\npresent Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is due to retire
\non 15.09.2011. The petitioner has questioned the authority of the Regional
\nTransport Officer, to withhold the driving licence, on the ground inter alia
\nthat the Regional Transport Officer, Thanjavur has no jurisdiction, till a
\nfinding is recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction\/Tribunal, on the
\naspect of rash and negligent driving.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. The issue as to whether the licensing authority has powers to
\nwithhold the driving licence, until the proceedings under Sections 19 and 21 of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act are concluded, or when a case for dangerous driving under
\nSection 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code is pending, has been considered by this
\nCourt in W.P.(MD)No.8067 of 2011, dated 20.07.2011.  It is useful to extract
\nparagraph Nos.4 to 37 of the said order dated 20.07.2011, which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“4. In order to adjudicate the contentions, it is necessary to
\nextract few provisions from the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 19 of Motor Vehicles
\nAct, 1988 gives power to the licensing authority to disqualify from holding a
\ndriving licence or revoke such licence and the same reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving
\nlicence or revoke such licence.-(1)If a licensing authority is satisfied, after
\ngiving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(a) is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or psychotropic
\nsubstance within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
\nAct, 1985; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a
\ncognizable offence; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(d) has by his previous conduct as driver of a motor vehicle shown
\nthat his driving is likely to be attended with danger to the public; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(e) has obtained any driving licence or a licence to drive a
\nparticular class or description of motor vehicle by fraud or misrepresentation;
\nor\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(f) has committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisance or
\ndanger to the public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, having
\nregard to the objects of this Act; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(g) has failed to submit to, or has not passed, the tests referred
\nto in the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 22; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(h) being a person under the age of eighteen years who has been
\ngranted a learner’s licence or a driving licence with the consent in writing of
\nthe person having the care of the holder of the licence and has ceased to be in
\nsuch care,
\nit may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(i) disqualifying that person for a specified period for
\nholding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or
\ndescriptions of vehicles specified in the licence; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(ii) revoke any such licence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) Where an order under sub-section (1) is made, the holder of a driving
\nlicence shall forthwith surrender his driving licence to the licensing authority
\nmaking the order, if the driving licence has not already been surrendered, and
\nthe licensing authority shall,-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(a) if the driving licence is a driving licence issued under this
\nAct, keep it until the disqualification has expired or has been removed; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(b) if it is not a driving licence issued under this Act, endorse
\nthe disqualification upon it and send it to the licensing authority by which it
\nwas issued; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(c) in the case of revocation of any licence, endorse the revocation
\nupon it and if it is not the authority which issued the same, intimate the fact
\nof revocation to the authority which issued that licence:
\nProvided that where the driving licence of a person authorises him to drive more
\nthan one class or description of motor vehicles and the order, made under sub-
\nsection (1), disqualifies him from driving any specified class or description of
\nmotor vehicles, the licensing authority shall endorse the disqualification upon
\nthe driving licence and return the same to the holder.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) Any person aggrieved by an order made by a licensing authority under
\nsub-section (1) may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, appeal to
\nthe prescribed authority, and such appellate authority shall give notice to the
\nlicensing authority and hear either party if so required by that party and may
\npass such order as it thinks fit and an order passed by any such appellate
\nauthority shall be final.”\n<\/p>\n
          5.\tSection 20 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the
\npower of Court to disqualify driving licence, which reads as follows:
\n“20.Power of Court to disqualify.-(1)Where a person is convicted of an offence
\nunder this Act or of an offence in the commission of which a motor vehicle was
\nused, “the Court” by which such person is convicted may, subject to the
\nprovisions of this Act, in addition to imposing any other punishment authorised
\nby law, declare the persons so convicted to be disqualified, for such period as
\nthe Court may specify, from holding any driving licence to drive all classes or
\ndescription of vehicles, or any particular class or description of such
\nvehicles, as are specified in such licence:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that in respect of an offence punishable under section 183 no such
\norder shall be made for the first or second offence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under clause (c) of sub-
\nsection (1) of section 132, section 134 or section 185, the Court convicting any
\nperson of any such offence shall order the disqualification under sub-section
\n(1), and if the offence is relatable to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section
\n132 or section 134, such disqualification shall be for a period of not less than
\none month, and if the offence is relatable to section 185, such disqualification
\nshall be for a period of not less than six months.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) A Court shall, unless for special reasons to be recorded in writing it
\nthinks fit to order otherwise, order the disqualification of a person-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(a) who having been convicted of an offence punishable under section
\n184 is again convicted of an offence punishable under that section,\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(b) who is convicted of an offence punishable under section 189, or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(c) who is convicted of an offence punishable under section 192:
\nProvided that the period of disqualification shall not exceed, in the case
\nreferred to in clause (a), five years, or, in the case referred to in clause\n<\/p>\n
(b), two years or, in the case referred to in clause (c), one year.
\n\t(4) A Court ordering the disqualification of a person convicted of an
\noffence punishable under section 184 may direct that such person shall, whether
\nhe has previously passed the test of competence to drive as referred to in sub-
\nsection (3) of section 9 or not, remain disqualified until he has subsequent to
\nthe making of the order of disqualification passed that test to the satisfaction
\nof the licensing authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t(5) The Court to which an appeal would ordinarily lie from any conviction
\nof an offence of the nature specified in sub-section (1) may set aside or vary
\nany order of disqualification made under that sub-section notwithstanding that
\nno appeal would lie against the conviction as a result of which such order of
\ndisqualification was made.”\n<\/p>\n
          6. Section 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the
\nsuspension of driving licence in certain cases, which reads as follows:
\n“21. Suspension of driving licence in certain cases.-(1) Where, in relation to a
\nperson who had been previously convicted of an offence punishable under section
\n184, a case is registered by a police officer on the allegation that such person
\nhas, by such dangerous driving as is referred to in the said section 184, of any
\nclass or description of motor vehicle caused the death of, or grievous hurt to,
\none or more persons, the driving licence held by such person shall in relation
\nto such class or description of motor vehicle become suspended-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(a) for a period of six months from the date on which the case is
\nregistered, or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(b) if such person is discharged or acquitted before the expiry of
\nthe period aforesaid, until such discharge or acquittal, as the case may be.
\n\t(2) Where, by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (1), the driving
\nlicence held by a person becomes suspended, the police officer, by whom the case
\nreferred to in sub-section (1) is registered, shall bring such suspension to the
\nnotice of the Court competent to take cognizance of such offence, and thereupon,
\nsuch Court shall take possession of the driving licence, endorse the suspension
\nthereon and intimate the fact of such endorsement to the licensing authority by
\nwhich the licence was granted or last renewed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) Where the person referred to in sub-section (1) is acquitted or
\ndischarged, the Court shall cancel the endorsement on such driving licence with
\nregard to the suspension thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) If a driving licence in relation to a particular class or description
\nof motor vehicles is suspended under sub-section (1), the person holding such
\nlicence shall be debarred from holding or obtaining any licence to drive such
\nparticular class or description of motor vehicles so long as the suspension of
\nthe driving licence remains in force.”\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Section 184 of of the Motor Vehicles Act is extracted hereunder:
\n“184. Driving Dangerously. – Whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a
\nmanner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances
\nof the case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the
\nvehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or
\nwhich might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for
\nthe first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months,
\nor with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and for any second or
\nsubsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of a
\nprevious similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two
\nyears, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8.It is worthwhile to extract the meaning of the word, “suspension” given
\nin the Dictionaries.\n<\/p>\n
\t“Suspension, as per Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 14th Edn., is a temporary stop
\nor hanging up as it were of a right for a time, also a censure on ecclesiastical
\npersons, during which they are forbidden to exercise their office or take the
\nprofits of their benefices.\n<\/p>\n
\t‘Suspension’ means, “action of debarring or state of being debarred,
\nespecially, for a time, from a function or privilege; temporary deprivation of
\none’s office or position, or again, state of being temporarily kept from doing
\nor deprived of something.\n<\/p>\n
\tSuspension as per Black’s Law Dictionary: 7th Edn. Pg.1460 means, (1) to
\ninterrupt; postpone; defer (2) to temporarily keep a person from performing a
\nfunction, occupying an office, holding a job or exercising a right or privilege.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs per Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, “Suspension’ or ‘Suspense’ is a
\ntemporal, ie., temporary, “Stop of Mans’ Right (Cowel).  Suspension, as per
\nBauvier’s Law Dictionary, Vol.II, means a temporary stop of right, of a law, and
\nthe like. As per the Ramanatha Iyer’s Dictionary, suspension means temporary
\nintervention or cession of something (as) office, work or labour.
\n\tThe act of debarring for a time from a function or privilege”. It means a
\ntemporary deprivation of once office or position. [K.J. Aiyar’s Judicial
\nDictionary, 14th Edn.]<\/p>\n
\tSuspension, according to Oxford Dictionary, means, “The action of
\nsuspending or condition of being suspended, the action debarring especially for
\na time from, a function or privilege, temporary deprivation of one’s office or
\nposition or again, state of being temporarily kept from doing or deprived of
\nsomething.\n<\/p>\n
\tSuspension is, to defer; to debar from any privilege, office employment,
\net., for a time being.  [Ref. Hemanth Kumar v. S.N.Mukherjee reported in AIR
\n1954 Cal. 340]<\/p>\n
\tSuspension cannotes temporary cessation of something as right, work or
\nlabour. The basic idea underlying the root word, “suspend” and all its
\nderivatives is that a person while holding an office and performing its
\nfunctions of holding a position or privilege should be interrupted in doing so
\nand debarred for the time being from further functioning in the office or
\nholding the position and privilege.  He is intercepted in the exercise of his
\nfunctions of his employment of the privilege and put aside, as it were, for a
\ntime, excluded during the period from his functions or privileges. Such is the
\nconcept of a suspension order.   Reference can be made to the decision in Abid
\nMohd. Khan v. State of M.P.<\/a> reported in AIR 1958 MP 44.\n<\/p>\n
“A conditional withholding, interruption, or delay; as, the suspension of a
\npayment on the performance of a condition.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9.In V.Seetharaman Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Madurai South
\nreported in (2008-3-L.W 433), the licence of the petitioner therein has been
\nsuspended after issuing show-cause notice.  The show-cause notice reads as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Report dated 07.12.2007 of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-I, Madurai
\nSouth.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhereas, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-I, had recommended for
\nrevocation of the licence granted to you for causing a fatal accident.  You are
\nhereby called upon to show cause as to why your license should not be revoked or
\nsuspended within 7 days of this nootice.  Failing which, it will be considered
\nthat you do not have any cause to show and without further intimation your
\nlicense will be revoked or suspended under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles
\nAct.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The petitioner therein submitted his explanation disputing the manner
\nin which the accident occurred.  After considering the explanation, by an order
\ndated 08.01.2008, under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
\nlicence was suspended from 01.02.2008 to 31.07.2008, by the licensing authority,
\nMadurai South.  The holder of the licence was directed not to drive any motor
\nvehicles.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The grounds of challenge of the order of suspension were as follows:-
\n\ta. The authority has filed to see that mere involvement of the petitioner
\nin a fatal accident case does not per se attract disqualification, unless the
\ndriver, by his previous conduct as driver of Motor vehicle has shows that his
\ndriving is likely to be attended with danger to the public as per the mandate of
\nsection 19(a)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\tb. The impugned order did not reflects the total non-application of mind
\nby the authority and does not reflect the subjective satisfaction required to be
\nmade under the said Section.\n<\/p>\n
\tc. The motor vehicle report was not furnished and that there was violation
\nof principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Considering the grounds raised, Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.Nagamuthu, passed
\nan order dated 14.02.2008, in W.P.(MD)No.1266 of 2008, rejecting the contentions
\nand at para 4, it has been held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“4. A perusal of the order would go to show that a show cause notice was
\nissued on 07.12.2007, for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on
\n27.12.2007.  He has not asked for copy of any document.  There is also no
\ndispute that the vehicle driven by him met with an accident.  Under Section
\n19(1) Sub Clause (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the motor vehicle driven by a
\ndriver has been involved in the commission of cognizable offence, certainly, the
\nauthorities have got power to disqualify the person, after recording the
\nreasons.  Thus, I do not find any merit in the argument that the order is not a
\nspeaking order and that the principles of natural justice have not been
\nfollowed.  In any even, the impugned orders appealable to the authority as
\nprescribed under Section 19(3) of the said Act.  When the petitioner has an
\nalternative efficacious remedy, the writ petition cannot be maintained before
\nthis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.When the matter was challenged by way of an appeal in W.A.(MD)No.205 of
\n2008, it was inter alia contended that even though  an offence under Section
\n304-A IPC is cognizable, the language of the section indicates that the offence
\nis committed when there is a rash and negligent driving and a person, who is
\nalleged to have committed an offence under Section 304-A by rash and negligent
\ndriving, cannot be said to have “used the motor vehicle in the commission of a
\ncognizable offence”.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.According to the appellant therein, the provisions contained in Section
\n19(1)(c) would be applicable only, where, the person concerned deliberately used
\nthe Motor Vehicle in the commission of offence and not where the cause of rash
\nand negligent driving of motor vehicle, under Section 304-A is committed.
\nRejecting the contention, a Division Bench, cited supra, at paragraph 10, has
\nheld as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The power to revoke the licence is granted to the authority with a view
\nto prevent a person unworthy of driving a vehicle from driving temporarily or
\neven permanently.  If the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant is accepted, even a person, who drives a vehicle negligently and
\nrecklessly and causes death, will continue to drive the vehicle in future with
\nimpunity with the existing licence.  Such interpretation would give rise to
\nstarting consequences and defeat the very purpose of incorporating Section 19 of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act.  Therefore, the interpretation suggested by the learned
\ncounsel for the appellant, is not acceptable.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The dictum laid down in the above said judgment is that when there is
\nrash and negligent driving and when the petitioner alleged to have committed an
\noffence under Section 304-A, the competent authority, with a view to prevent a
\nperson from continuing to drive the vehicle in favour of the existing licence,
\ncan resort the suspension.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.In P.Sethuram V. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport
\nOfficer, Dindigul<\/a> reported in (2010 Writ L.R.100) In the above reported
\njudgment, the Division Bench was pleased to quash the order of suspension on the
\nground that there was no allegation either in the notice or in the impugned
\norder made in the above writ petition that the appellant therein was a habitual
\ncriminal or habitual drunkard so as to attract Clause (a) of Section 19 of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.The Division Bench has further observed that the Licensing Authority
\nhas pre-concluded the issue that the appellant therein was guilty of rash and
\nnegligent, even before the criminal court or the Motor vehicles claims Tribunal
\nwent into the case.  There is absolutely no quarrel over the judgment that the
\nlicencing authority cannot hold the licence as guilty of rash and negligent
\ndriving, when it is the function of the Court of competent jurisdiction or the
\nclaims Tribunal to adjudicate the aspect of rash and negligent driving.  Also,
\nwhen the show-cause notice or the impugned order, does not impute the appellant
\nwith any of the ingredients, necessary under clause (b) to (h) of Sub-Section
\n(1) of Section 19 of the Act., the Division Bench has set aside the order of
\nsuspension.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.Though the Division Bench, tested the correctness of the order of
\nsuspension,  with due respect, this Court is of the view that the issue as to
\nwhether, the licence can be directed to surrender the licence, under Section
\n19(2) of the Act, pending proceedings under 19(1) was not raised and answered.
\nSection 19(2) reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“19(2). Where an order under sub-Sectiion(1) is made, the holder of a
\ndriving licence shall forthwith surrender his driving licence to the licensing
\nauthority making the order, if the driving licence has not already been
\nsurrendered, and the licensing authority shall,-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) if the driving licence is a driving licence issued under this Act,
\nkeep it until the disqualification was expired or has been removed; or\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) if it is not a driving licence issued under this Act, endorse the
\ndisqualification upon it and send it to the licensing authority by which it was
\nissued: or\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) in the case of revocation of any licence, endorse, the revocation upon
\nit and if it is not the authority which issued the same, intimate the fact of
\nrevocation to the authority which issued that licence.
\n\tProvided that where the driving licence of a person authorities him to
\ndrive more than one class or description of motor vehicles and the order, made
\nunder sub-section (1), disqualifies him from driving any specified class or
\ndescription or motor vehicles, the licensing authority shall endorse the
\ndisqualification upon the driving licence and return the same to the holder.”\n<\/p>\n
\t19.Section 19 empowers the competent authority to pass an order under Sub-
\nsection 19 and when an order sub-section 1 is made, the holder of the driving
\nlincence shall forthwith surrender his driving licence to the licensing
\nauthority making the order, if the driving licence has not already been
\nsurrendered.  Thus, reading of the Section makes it clear that surrendering of
\nthe licence is done at two stages, when he is called upon to do so, before an
\norder under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 is passed on immediately thereafter.
\nThus impliedly the Section also makes it clear that there is a power conferred
\non the licencing authority to insist for surrendering the licence, till the
\nadjudication is completed under Section 19(1) of the Act.  Therefore, it cannot
\nbe contended that the competent authority has no power or authority to retain
\nthe driving licence, till the adjudication is completed and final orders are
\npassed, under Section 19(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.In W.P.Nos.18042 and 18490 of 2010, the orders of the licensing
\nauthority, suspending the licences to the petitioners therein were challenged.
\nReliance was also placed on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in A.Sekar
\nVs. The Regional Transport Officer reported in (2010 WLR 100).  The orders of
\nsuspension came to be passed, after issuance of show-cause notices.  While
\nconsidering the plea of the petitioners therein, that licences have been
\nsuspended, even before the conviction was recorded by a Court of competent
\njurisdiction and taking note of the large number of accident cases, registered
\nin the State, for the years 1993 to 2009, Hon’ble Justice Mr.Paul Vasanthakumar,
\nat paragraph 12 to 16 held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“12. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2010 WLR
\n100 (cited supra), while deciding the issue of suspension of the driving licence
\nheld that suspending a licence has got civil consequences. Therefore only after
\nissuing show cause notice an order could be passed. In the said case no show
\ncause notice was issued and without mentioning the commission of a cognisable
\noffence, the suspension order was passed. Therefore this Court held that the
\nsaid order was passed without due application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In the cases on hand, as already stated, show cause notices were
\nissued to the petitioners and the petitioners’ representations and objections
\nwere also considered, apart from giving opportunity to the petitioners to appear
\nin person in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.18042 of 2010. The offence
\nalleged against the petitioners are also taken note of by the respondent and
\ndeath of one person each in these writ petitions and thereafter it was thought
\nfit to suspend the driving licence of the petitioners for a period of six
\nmonths. The said orders are passed based on public interest and to prevent
\ndanger to public, bearing in mind the prevention such accident by the
\npetitioners for certain period viz., six months. Therefore the provisions
\ncontained in section 19(1)(f) empowers the respondent in these cases to pass the
\nimpugned orders, i.e, to prevent danger to the public.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. It is the fact that number of accidents and death due to the accidents
\nare increasing year after year due to several factors, including careless and
\nindisciplined driving; drunken driving; using cell phone while driving; sleepy
\ndriving; etc. The statistics available regarding road accidents from 1993 to
\n2009 in the State of Tamil Nadu are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
\nState Transport Authority
\nROAD ACCIDENT DATA FROM 1993 TO 2009
\nTAMIL NADU\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————- YEAR
\nFatal Grevious Injury Minor Injury Non-Injury Total
\nN.A N.P.K N.A N.P.I N.A N.P.I N.A Accidents
\n1993 6528 7349 3562 5100 17957 27226 6878 34925
\n1994 7027 7798 4199 6091 18950 28789 6861 37037
\n1995 7974 8773 4440 6380 21661 31922 7610 41685
\n1996 8079 9028 4474 7383 22151 31198 7493 42197
\n1997 7947 8755 4542 6567 23362 34010 8352 44203
\n1998 8510 9801 6562 8525 23862 33970 7789 46723
\n1999 8734 9653 5276 7287 27231 34157 6845 48086
\n2000 8269 9300 5278 8496 29137 44910 6239 48923
\n2001 8579 9571 5442 8354 30963 45928 6994 51978
\n2002 9012 9939 5830 8697 32183 46433 6478 53503
\n2003 8393 9275 5163 8557 31600 46685 5869 51025
\n2004 8733 9507 4875 7642 33222 49641 5678 52508
\n2005 8844 9760 5214 7815 34669 54152 5151 53878
\n2006 10055 110 09 4630 6833 36262 57508 4198 55145
\n2007 11034 12036 4498 6873 39494 64226 4114 59140
\n2008 11813 12784 4426 6696 39193 63555 4977 60409
\n2009 12727 13746 4448 6721 39676 63783 3943 60794\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————-
\nN A : No of Accidents
\nN P K : No of persons killed
\nN P I : No of persons Injured
\nSource: DGP, Chennai”\n<\/p>\n
The number of road accidents and the causes for such accidents during the year
\n2009 in the state of Tamil Nadu are as follows: “Government of Tamil Nadu
\nState Transport Authority
\nNUMBER OF ROAD ACCIDENTS ACCORDING TO CAUSES
\nDURING THE YEAR 2009 (FROM JANUARY ‘2009 TO DECEMBER ‘2009)
\nState : TAMIL NADU\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————-NUMBER
\nOF ROAD ACCIDENTS ACCORDING TO CAUSES\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————- Types
\nof Causes Fatal Grevious Minor Non Total
\nInjury Injury Injury Accidents<\/p>\n
N.A N.P.K N.A N.P.I N.A N.P.I N.A\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————- Fault
\nof Driver 11494 12438 4091 6216 35636 57593 3731 54952
\nFault of
\nPassenger
\nOther than
\nDriver 261 287 73 94 857 1202 64 1255
\nFault of
\nPedestrian 464 479 150 187 1695 2561 20 2329
\nFault of
\nMechanical
\nDefect 103 108 38 56 446 697 34 621
\nBad Road 117 121 46 86 404 647 47 614
\nBad Weather 9 13 6 6 65 109 8 88
\nOthers 279 300 44 76 573 974 39 935
\nTotal 12727 13746 4448 6721 39676 63783 3943 60794\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————— N A-NO.
\nOF ACCIDENTS.\n<\/p>\n
N P K – NO. OF PERSONS KILLED.\n<\/p>\n
N P I – NO. OF PERSONS INJURED
\nSource: DGP, Chennai”\n<\/p>\n
The above data indicate gradual increase of fatal and grievous injury accidents.
\nThe percentage of accidents caused by the drivers’ negligence is 90.31%. Thus,
\nstrict implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is the
\npresent day requirement not only at the time of issuing driving licence, but
\nalso even after the licence is issued.\n<\/p>\n
15. The Division Bench judgment cited supra nowhere states that unless a person
\nis convicted by a criminal court no suspension of licence be ordered. The said
\njudgment only states that prior to the order of suspension notice shall be given
\nto the licensee and his objection shall be considered. The said procedure is
\nstated in Section 19(1) of the Act. Strict implementation of the provisions of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the authorities concerned will have deterrent
\neffect on the drivers in future and definitely they will be careful in future,
\nwhich will in turn minimise the number of accidents. Therefore it should be
\ntreated as a right decision by the authorities concerned.\n<\/p>\n
16. Since the petitioners are involved in criminal case for the commission of
\naccident, due to which one person each died, the order passed by the respondent
\nin these writ petitions suspending the licence of the petitioners for a period
\nof six months after issuing notice and considering their explanation are
\ndeclared valid and there is no illegality in the said orders. There are no
\nmerits in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs. Connected
\nmiscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.Motor Vehicles Act is a comprehensive Code, containing all features
\nwhich covers, grant of permits, usage of the vehicles, description of the
\nvehicles, different kinds of licences required for different clauses of licence,
\ntransfer of ownership etc., and it  empowers the licensing authorities, to
\ndisqualify,  suspend or revoke the licences, depending upon the factors
\nenumerated in the Sections.  Restricting to operate the vehicles, are measures
\nto temporarily or permanently to curtail the rights of the licencees,
\nconsidering the safety of the road users, including general public.  Public
\ninterest is the predominant consideration while taking appropriate action by the
\nlicensing authority or the Court, as the case may be.  In this context, it is
\nworthwhile to extract few decisions, as to how a statute has to be interpreted.\n<\/p>\n
 \t“(i) It is impossible to separate law from morality because public law is,
\nand always has been, a reflection of the morality of those who make the
\nlaws.(How Does Law Relate to Morals by Rav.B.Horovitz)<\/p>\n
\t(ii)There are two units of enquiry, while interpreting the statutory
\nprovisions.  Statutory context and the intention of the Parliament – and the
\nJudge must seek to harmonise the two [Cross’s “Statutory Interpretation” (Second
\nEdn.), at Page 21]\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)The universe of meanings is neither a sound-proof system nor a nisy
\nbabel. We have guidelines, not rituals. The rule is not, always literality, for
\nthat sounds like bigotry. Nor is it whatever the interpreter chooses, like
\nhistoricity, sociology, contextuality and a host of fancy-dress fashions, for
\nthat will create unwarranted variances and supersede the law-maker by a side-
\nwind. Words used designedly by trained draftsmen and authenticated by purposeful
\nlegislators, must possess a mandate, a meaning and a mission. That is Its sense.
\n[Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth and<\/a> another (AIR 1977 SC 2328 =
\n1977 (4) SCC 193)]\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)The current and correct view of the interpretative process is that
\nwords must be given their literal’ or ‘ordinary’ meaning unless there are
\ncompelling reasons, recognised by canons of construction, to the contrary.
\n[Authorised Officer, Thanjavur and another v. S.Naganatha Ayyar, etc., (AIR 1979
\nSC 1487 = 1979 (3) SCC 466)]\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)Where a statute confers particular powers without prejudice to the
\ngenerality of a general power already conferred, the particular powers are only
\nillustrative of the general power and do not in any way restrict the general
\npower. [D.K.Trivedi v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1986 SC 1323 = 1986 SCC Suppl. 20)]\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi)The Courts strongly lean against any construction which tends to
\nreduce a statute to a futility. The provision of a statute must be so construed
\nas to make it effective and operative on the principle ut res magis valeat quam
\npereat. [Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd., v. State of Assam (AIR<\/a> 1990 SC\n<\/p>\n
123)]\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) In construing a statute, the Court has to ascertain the intention of
\nthe law making authority in the backdrop of the dominant purpose and the
\nunderlying intendment of the said statute and that every statute has to be
\ninterpreted without any violence to its language and applied as far as its
\nexplicit language admits consistent with the established rule of interpretation.
\n[Mohan Kumar Singhania and others v. Union of India and others (AIR<\/a> 1992 SC 1 =
\n1991 AIR SCW 2646 = 1991 Lab IC 2334 Para 67)].\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii). The Courts have a duty to construe the provisions of a statute to
\nadvance the cause of justice and facilitate the day to day working of the
\nstatute to serve the public interest and achieve the objective of social
\nbetterment. [Gauri Shankar Gaur and others, etc., v. State of U.P., and others
\n(AIR 1994 SC 169 = 1994 (1)SCC 92)]\n<\/p>\n
\t(ix)The words of a statute are to be first understood in their natural,
\nordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to
\ntheir grammatical meaning unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is
\nsomething in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest the
\ncontrary. [Shri.Mohd.Ali Khan and others v. The C.W., Tax, New Delhi, 1997 (3)
\nJT (SC) 250 = (1997) 3 SCC 511 = AIR 1997 SC 1165 = 1997 AIR SCW 1175 = 1997 Tax
\nLR 371)]\n<\/p>\n
\t(x)Law Courts exist for the society and in the event law Courts feel the
\nrequirement in accordance with principles of justice, equity and good
\nconscience, the law Courts ought rise up to the occasion to meet and redress the
\nexpectation of the people. [Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh
\nand<\/a> other etc., (AIR 1999 SC 1160 = 1999 (3) SCC 601)]\n<\/p>\n
\t(xi).The provision in the statute has to be understood in its ordinary
\nnatural sense, unless the Court finds that the provision sought to be
\ninterpreted is vague or obscurely worded. [Steel Authority of India Ltd., and
\nothers v. National Union Water Front Workers and Others,<\/a> etc. (AIR 2001 SC 3527
\n= 2001 (7) SCC 1)\n<\/p>\n
\t(xii).The Court’s jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when
\nthe same is ambiguous. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention
\nwhen the language of provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or
\nsubtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It
\ncannot re-write or recast legislation. [Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal (AIR<\/a> 2003
\nSCW 908)]\n<\/p>\n
\t(xiii)”A statute must be construed as a workable instrument. Ut res magis
\nvaleat quam pereat is a well-known principle of law. [Balram Kumawat v. Union of
\nIndia (AIR<\/a> 2003 SC 3268 = 2003 (7) SCC 628)]”\n<\/p>\n
\t22.Section 19 of the Act empowers the licensing authority to disqualify
\nthe holder of a licence, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing.  To
\naddress the argument that only after final determination of the offence the
\nlicence can be suspended, it is necessary to examine the Provision 19(1)(c),
\nwhich is extracted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“19(1)(c). is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a
\ncognizable offence.”\n<\/p>\n
\t23.Section 19(1)(c) clearly states that “is using or used a motor vehicle
\nin the Commission of a cognizable offence”, the legislature has used both past
\nand present tenses, while considering the usage of the vehicle, in commission of
\na cognizable offence.  The word “commission”  is now sought to be interpreted,
\nas one of final determination by the Court, after trial.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe word, ‘Commission’, as explained in ‘CHAMBERS DICTIONARY’ is, “the act
\nof committing; the state of being commissioned or committed; that which is
\ncommitted.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAs per ‘OXFOR ENGLISH DICTIONARY’, ‘commission’ means, an action of
\ncommitting a crime or offence.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn ‘JUDICIAL DICTIONARY’, the word, ‘commit’ is defined as to perpetrate,
\nas a crime; to perform as an act.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs per the ‘ADVANCED LAW LEXICON’ by P.Ramanatha Aiyar, III Edition, the
\nword, ‘commission in criminal law’ is defined as ‘doing or perpetration; the
\nperformance of an act.\n<\/p>\n
\t“Commit’ as per ‘STROUD’S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY’, this word, sometimes
\ninclude an act or omission.\n<\/p>\n
\t‘COLLINS COBUILD ARAVANCED LEARNERS ENGLISH DICTIONARY’ the word, ‘commit’
\nis defined as,
\n\t“If someone commits a crime or a sin, they do something illegal or bad”.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) As per BLACK’s LAW DICTIONARY’, ‘commission’ means, an act of doing or
\nperpetrating acts as a crime.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) As per MERRIAM WEBSTER’s COLLEGIATE ENGLISH DICTIONARY – 11th
\nEdition, ‘commission’ means, an act of something of a crime.\n<\/p>\n
         24. Section 184 provides for punishment of imprisonment to a maximum
\nperiod of six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for
\nthe first offence and for any second or subsequent offence, if committed within
\nthree years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment
\nfor a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two
\nthousand rupees or with both. Thus it could be seen in the event of any
\nrepetition of the commission of offence under Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act,
\n1988, an enhanced punishment is provided.  Section 304-A IPC reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“304-A. Causing death by negligence- Whoever causes death of any
\nperson by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide,
\nshall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
\nextend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”\n<\/p>\n
 It should be borne in mind that Section 304-A I.P.C., entails a severe
\npunishment than Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. An important aspect to be noted is that, the expression used in Sub-
\nSection (c) of Section 19 of Motor Vehicles Act is, “in using or used in the
\ncommission of a cognizable offence”. The Section does not state that the
\nlicensee should be convicted or any finding has to be recorded as to his guilt,
\nin the commission of any cognizable offence. Therefore, this Court is of the
\nview that the interpretation sought to be made by the petitioner to the
\nprovisions of Motor Vehicles Act that, only after arriving at a finding, the
\nlicensing authority can suspend or disqualify, to drive the vehicle or revokes
\nthe licence, for a specified would be an infringement to the statutory
\nprovision, which in my view that even during the pendency of a criminal case
\nregistered, when the holder “of the licence” is using or has used the vehicle in
\nthe commission of a cognizable offence.\n<\/p>\n
        26. If the interpretation of the petitioner has to be accepted, then the
\nlicensing authority has to remain as a mute spectator to all the illegal acts of
\nthe licensee, even if the vehicle is continuously used in the commission of any
\noffences, till the criminal Court records a finding.  That would run contrary to
\nSection 19 of Motor Vehicles Act, which specifically uses the expression, “used
\nor using the vehicle”, in commission of a cognizable offence. The Section does
\nnot state, “conclusion”, it only states “commission”.  The purpose in giving a
\nseparate caption, “dangerous driving”, would mean that such dangerous driving in
\ncausing death or grievous hurt to one or more persons can be taken note of the
\nlicencing authority to exercise his power to disqualify or suspend or revoke,
\ndepending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t27.While interpreting the provisions of the Act, this Court is of
\nthe view that, the principle of harmonious construction has to be applied to
\ngive effect to both the provisions under Sections 19 and 21 of the Motor
\nVehicles Act.  Where under Section 19(1)(c), the words, “using or has used in
\nthe commission of a cognizable offence is used” whereas, in Section 21 of the
\nAct, the word, “convicted” is used.  Useful reference can be made to the
\nfollowing decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)   In Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi<\/a> reported in 2001(8) SCC 540, the
\nSupreme Court, at Paragraph 8, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“For interpreting a particular provision of an Act, the import and effect
\nof the meaning of the words and phrases  used in the statute have to be gathered
\nfrom the text, the nature of the subject-matter and the purpose and intention of
\nthe statute.  It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that
\neffort should be made in construing its provisions by avoiding a conflict and
\nadopting a harmonious construction.  The statute or rules made thereunder should
\nbe read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the
\nother provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be
\nachieved.  The well-known principle of harmonious construction is that effect
\nshould be given to all the provisions and a construction that reduces one of the
\nprovisions to a “dead letter” is not harmonious construction.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) In R.S. Pillai v. M.L. Peratchi,<\/a> reported in (2000) 4 CTC 543, a
\nDivision Bench of this Court, at Paragraphs 23 held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“23. Before we take up such an exercise, the settled legal position
\nin interpreting the statutes has to be borne in mind. It is settled law that the
\nstatute must be read as a whole and this principle equally applies to different
\nparts of the same Section The Balasinor Nagrik Co-op. Bank Ltd., v. Babubhai,
\nAIR<\/a> 1987 SC 849.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tNo provision in the statute and no word in the Section may be
\nconstrued in isolation Syed Hasan Rasul Numa v. Union of India<\/a> , AIR 1991 SC\n<\/p>\n
711.
\n\t\tWhere the language of the provision is plain, clear and unambiguous,
\nonly the plain meaning of the provision is to be adopted so as to avoid any
\nhardship or absurdity resulting therefrom R.S.Raghunath v. State of Karnataka,
\n1992 (1) SCC 335 and Mohammed All Khan v. W.T. Coinmr., AIR 1997 SC 1165.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Again in M. Sathyanathan v. The District Collector,<\/a> reported in
\n(2006) 1 CTC 328 , this Court held that,<\/p>\n
\t\t“8. It is well-settled principle of interpretation that a statute is
\nto be interpreted on its plain reading; in the absence of any doubt or
\ndifficulty arising out of such reading of a statute defeating or frustrating the
\nobject and purpose of an enactment, it must be read and understood by its plain
\nreading. However, in case of any difficulty or doubt arising in interpreting a
\nprovision of an enactment, courts will interpret such a provision keeping in
\nmind the objects sought to be achieved and the purpose intended to be served by
\nsuch a provision so as to advance the cause for which the enactment was brought
\ninto force. If two interpretations are possible, the one which promotes or
\nfavours the object of the Act and purpose it serves, is to be preferred. At any
\nrate, in the guise of purposive interpretation, the courts cannot rewrite a
\nstatute. A purposive interpretation may permit a reading of the provision
\nconsistent with the purpose and object of the Act, but the Courts cannot
\nlegislate and enact the provision either creating or taking away substantial
\nrights by stretching or straining a piece of legislation. Vide Sri Ram Saha v.
\nState of W.B. , 2004 (11) SCC 497.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)\tIn R.Sridharan v. Presiding Officer<\/a> reported in 2008 (6) MLJ 1181,
\nat Paragraph 41, this Court has held that,
\n\t“41.\tInterpretation of a Statutory provision should be to find out the
\nintention of the legislature and that has to be  understood with due regard that
\nthe object of the legislation also. The word employed in the Statute will
\nacquire meaning and content depending upon the context in which they are used.
\nThe word should not be torn out by the context and by interpretation, it would
\nmake another provision Otiose\/redundant and such interpretation should not be
\nadopted.”\n<\/p>\n
        28. Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with suspension or
\ncancellation of driving licence can be made on conviction, which reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“22. Suspension or cancellation of driving licence on conviction.-(1) Without
\nprejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 20 where a person,
\nreferred to in sub-section (1) of section 21 is convicted of an offence of
\ncausing, by dangerous driving as is referred to in section 184 of any class or
\ndescription of motor vehicle the death of, or grievous hurt to, one or more
\npersons, the Court by which such person is convicted may cancel, or suspend for
\nsuch period as it may think fit, the driving licence held by such person insofar
\nas it relates to that class or description of motor vehicle.
\n\t(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 20,
\nif a person, having been previously convicted of an offence punishable under
\nsection 185 is again convicted of an offence punishable under that section, the
\nCourt, making such subsequent conviction, shall, by order, cancel the driving
\nlicence held by such person.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) If a driving licence is cancelled or suspended under this section, the
\nCourt shall take the driving licence in its custody, endorse the cancellation
\nor, as the case may be, suspension, thereon and send the driving licence so
\nendorsed to the authority by which the licence was issued or last renewed and
\nsuch authority shall, on receipt of the licence, keep the licence in its safe
\ncustody, and in the case of a suspended licence, return the licence to the
\nholder thereof after the expiry of the period of suspension on an application
\nmade by him for such return:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no such licence shall be returned unless the holder thereof has,
\nafter the expiry of the period of suspension, undergone and passed, to the
\nsatisfaction of the licensing authority by which the licence was issued or last
\nrenewed, a fresh test of competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of
\nsection 9 and produced a medical certificate in the same form and in the same
\nmanner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8.
\n\t(4) If a licence to drive a particular class or description of motor
\nvehicles is cancelled or suspended under this section, the person holding such a
\nlicence shall be debarred from holding, or obtaining, any licence to drive such
\nparticular class or description of motor vehicles so long as the cancellation or
\nsuspension of the driving licence remains in force.”\n<\/p>\n
\t29. A bare reading of Sections 19 to 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, makes
\nit clear that both the Licensing Authorities as well as a Court of competent
\njurisdiction, which try a person for an offence under the penal laws and or
\nunder the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are empowered to disqualify a person from
\nholding a driving licence or suspend or revoke the same, as the case may be. The
\npower to disqualify a holder of a licence after arriving at the conclusion of
\nguilty of the offence is entirely different than the power conferred on the
\nLicensing authority, when the holder of licence, is using or has used the
\nvehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. Reading of Section 19  of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it clear
\nthat if a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving
\nlicense an opportunity of being heard, that he, “by using or used a motor
\nvehicle in the commission of cognizable offence”, such authority can disqualify
\nthe holder of licence, for a specified period, for holding or obtaining any
\ndriving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles
\nspecified in the licence or he can even revoke the licence. It is also to be
\nnoted that the legislature has also clearly demarcated the powers of the Courts
\nand the licensing authorities, as to when the licence can be suspended or
\nrevoked, when there is commission of a cognizable offence or for   conviction of
\nan offence.  Sections 19 and 21 deal with the powers of the Licensing authority.
\nSections 20 and 22 deal with the powers of the Court.  The circumstances under
\nwhich the holder of the licence can be disqualified for a specified period in
\nSection 19(1) are different from the one in Section 21.  Both operate under
\ndifferent sphere.  Section 19(1) speaks of commission of cognizable offence in
\ncontra to Section 21, which speaks about previous conviction under Section 184
\nof the Motor Vehicles Act.  The usage of the words, “commission of a cognizable
\noffence” and “conviction”, in two different sections in the enactment and the
\npower to suspend or disqualify, as the case may be,  for specific and definite
\nreasons set out in the Sections, have to be given their plain and literal
\nmeaning. To say that only after conviction or arriving at the conclusion, a
\nlicence can be suspended or licensee can be temporarily disqualified would
\nrender Section 19 of the Motor Vehicle Act, as  redundant.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. The words “used” or “using” the motor vehicle in the commission of a
\ncognizable offence, in the opinion of this Court, is not unambiguous and that
\nthe licensing authority is empowered to disqualify the holder of driving licence
\nor revoke the driving license, after providing an opportunity of being heard,
\nand it is not necessary that only after recording a finding that the holder of
\nlicence is guilty of an offence, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,
\nsuspension or disqualification can be made.\n<\/p>\n
\t32.Section 19(c) does not refer to an offence under Section 184 of Motor
\nVehicles Act, it states all offences which are cognizable in nature. In a given
\ncase, where the licensee is alleged to have involved in a heinous crime of
\nmurder or alleged in trafficking contraband, such as Narcotics and Psychotropic
\nDrugs, or smuggling, or any other serious offence by using or used the motor
\nvehicle, the offences being illustrative, then it cannot be contended that till
\nthe completion of trial, the licensee cannot be disqualified or the licence
\ncannot  be suspended or revoked.\n<\/p>\n
\t33.In the instant case, where the petitioner has caused death of a person,
\nby using a motor vehicle, it cannot be said that, until the Court of Criminal
\njurisdiction, finds him guilty and convicts him, or records acquittal for the
\noffences, he was tried, he should be allowed to drive the motor vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.Under the provisions of the Motor vehicles Act, the licensing authority
\nis empowered to issue appropriate licences and to disqualify\/suspend the licence
\nfor any period. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even
\nif a person is alleged to have committed a serious crime under Sections 279, 337
\nand 304-A I.P.C. like the instant case, for causing the death of a person, he
\nshould be allowed to drive the vehicle, ignoring the fact, that he has allegedly
\ncaused a death of a person is legally and morally not acceptable to this Court.
\nWhat is contemplated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is
\nonly an opportunity of being heard. For disqualifying or suspending the licence,
\nno regular enquiry is contemplated. \tStatutory provisions do not
\ncontemplate a regular enquiry, as that of a departmental enquiry to arrive at a
\nconclusion as to whether the holder of licence, has committed a cognizable
\noffence or not. It only states “using or used in the commission of an offence”.
\nA finding of guilt or acquittal for reason to be recorded, can be made only by a
\nCourt of competent jurisdiction, if the holder of licence is tried for any
\noffence under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or for any other cognizable offence,
\nunder the penal provisions, when the motor vehicle is used or is being used.
\nWhen similar argument was advanced in the case of suspension of a Motor Vehicle
\nPermit, this Court after considering the rival submissions, in Dhanmull v.
\nR.T.Authority<\/a> reported in AIR 1959 Mad. 531, has held as follows:
\n\t“12.\tWhat is contemplated under Sub-Section (1) of Section 86 is that
\nbefore cancellation of suspension, the holder of the permit should be given an
\nopportunity to submit his explanation. This Court in Dhanmull v. R.T.Authority<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 1959 Mad. 531, dealt with a question, as to whether Section 86
\nof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, contemplates examination of any witness before
\nsuspending the permit and at Paragraphs 7 to 10, held as follows:
\n\t“7. The authorities proceeded against the petitioner for contravention of
\nclause (b) of Section 60(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (1) of
\nsection 60 enumerates six categories of matters and provides that, should a
\ncontravention occur in respect of any of these, the permit may be cancelled on
\nsuspended for such period as the appropriate authority deems fit. There is a
\nproviso to this which runs :\n<\/p>\n
\t“Provided that no permit shall be cancelled, unless an opportunity has
\nbeen given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation.”
\nIt will be noticed that this section does not require that the authorities
\nconcerned should record any evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to say that,
\nwhen the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority declined to record the
\nevidence of the constable whom the petitioner referred to, he contravened any
\nprovision of the statute. The next thing to remember is that the authorities
\nreferred to in this sub-section have not been given power to summon witnesses or
\nto enforce their attendance. The omission in the statute in this respect
\nsuggests that it was not the intention of the legislature that the authorities
\nin question should examine any witnesses. It may also be mentioned that the
\npetitioner did not offer to produce the constable before the Secretary, Regional
\nTransport Authority, for his examination.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Another circumstance may be mentioned here. All that the proviso to
\nsub-s. (1) of Section 60 requires is that, before a permit is cancelled’, the
\nholder of the permit should be given an opportunity to furnish his explanation.
\nThe suspension of a permit is a less serious penalty than its cancellation. Even
\nas regards cancellation, all that the statute requires is that the operator
\nshould be given an opportunity to furnish his explanation. It seems to stand to
\nreason that in respect of the lesser penalty the statute could not have required
\nthat a more elaborate procedure should be followed.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. When we examine the scheme of the Act, it will be found that
\ncontraventions of its provisions and of the rules made thereunder are placed in
\ntwo categories. In one category is placed those contraventions, for which the
\noffender may be prosecuted and punished in the ordinary criminal courts. Such
\nmatters are provided for in Chapter 9 of the Act. In respect of other
\ncontraventions what I may call departmental action is provided for. This is a
\nvery summary method, and all that the authorities concerned are required to do
\nis to give the person proceeded against an opportunity to furnish his
\nexplanation. It follows that all that he required is that the person proceeded
\nagainst should be notified what the allegations against him are and that he
\nshould be given an opportunity to explain them.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The further comment I would make is that the right of the petitioner
\nto ply a stage carriage vehicle is derived under the Act. The extent of that
\nright and the circumstances under which that right is liable to be curtailed,
\nabridged or withdrawn are all provided for in the Act and the rules framed
\nthereunder. And so long as these have been complied with the petitioner cannot
\nproperly complain. Rut this does not mean that the proper authorities are
\nprecluded from examining the witnesses and in a proper case they would be
\nexercising a wise discretion if they do examine witnesses produced by a party.
\nAll that I would say at this stage is that, under the statute, a person placed
\nin the position of the petitioner has no right to insist that his witnesses
\nshould be examined when he is being proceeded against for a transgression of any
\nof tile matters enumerated in Sub-section (1) of Section 60.”\n<\/p>\n
\t35.In the above reported judgment, this Court held that in matters
\nrelating to suspension of permit, being a less serious penalty, for
\ncontravention of permit conditions and for violation of the Motor Vehicles Act,
\nthe procedure to be followed by the authorities is purely  summary in nature and
\nit is suffice that the holder of the permit is given an opportunity to explain
\nthe irregularities noticed at the time of check.\n<\/p>\n
\t36.When the legislature has prescribed a procedure for revocation or
\nsuspension or disqualification of a holder of licence, Courts cannot add or
\nimport, a regular enquiry into the provision to arrive at any specific finding,
\nregarding the guilt of the offence for which the licensee is charged. Yet
\nanother reason for rejecting the submission of the petitioner is that, when the
\nCourt of competent jurisdiction is empowered to record a finding of dangerous
\ndriving or any other offence to which, the licensee is charged and tried, there
\nis a possibility that the Licensing authority could arrive at a contrary finding
\nof fact.  The jurisdiction of the Court to arrive at a finding of guilt of an
\noffence or the claims Tribunal to record a finding of negligence, cannot be
\ntransgressed by the licensing authority. The licensing judicial authority cannot
\nusurp the powers of the Court, to record any finding of guilt of the offence. No
\ndoubt F.I.R. is a document, which sets the criminal law in motion for proceeding
\nagainst the offender under the penal laws or under the penal provision of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, yet the same can be taken note of by the licensing
\nauthority, for exercising the powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, for placing
\nrestriction on driving, when the holder of licence has caused the death or
\ngrievous hurt, by his dangerous driving.  When a crime has been registered
\nagainst the holder of licence, for dangerous driving, the authorities under
\nMotor Vehicles Act should be permitted to take appropriate action.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. In the light of the discussion, this Court is not inclined to issue
\nthe Mandamus prayed.  Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the order
\nmade in W.P.(MD)No.8067 of 2011 has been challenged by the writ petitioner
\ntherein and that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.856 of 2011, dated
\n08.09.2011, has dismissed the appeal of the driver as follows:
\n\t“This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
\nJudge dated 20.07.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.8067 of 2011, by which the learned
\nSingle Judge, after considering the entire issue elaborately, has dismissed the
\nsaid Writ Petition, which was filed by the appellant herein challenging the
\norder of the respondent herein and for a direction to the respondent to return
\nthe driving license, which was denied on the ground that a complaint has been
\nlodged against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Inasmuch as the said complaint is still pending as-on-date and the
\npower of suspension of license is available to the respondent, which is not in
\ndispute, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned
\nSingle Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.
\nHowever, it is always open to the appellant to have the relief claimed, either
\nafter the criminal case has ended in his favour or after the investigation is
\nover and final report is filed to the effect that no case is made out for the
\npurpose of the Court to take cognizance.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. In view of a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, cited
\nsupra, Mandamus sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, the Writ
\nPetition stands dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
SML<\/p>\n
To\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
The Regional Transport Officer,
\nThanjavur.\t\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09\/09\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.10251 of 2011 V.Rajendran … Petitioner Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Thanjavur. … Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-24T14:31:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"48 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-24T14:31:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":9456,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011\",\"name\":\"V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-24T14:31:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-24T14:31:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"48 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-24T14:31:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011"},"wordCount":9456,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011","name":"V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-24T14:31:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajendran-vs-the-regional-transport-officer-on-9-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Rajendran vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}