← Library
Madras High CourtWP/6282/2018disposed of

P.Saravanan v. Inspector Of Police

2018-03-20Honourable Mr Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.03.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.6282 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.7769 of 2018 P.Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police Traffic Investigating Wing Nattranpalli Police Station Vellore District.

2.The Licensing Authority-cumRegional Transport Officer Vaniyambadi Vellore District.

... Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.194/E2/2018 dated 23.01.2018 suspending the driving licence of the petitioner for a period of six months from 15.12.2017 to 14.06.2018 and to quash the same, and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to return the original driving licence (DL.No.TN29 19950003866) to the petitioner forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan For Respondents : Mr.B.Anandan Government Advocate

O R D E R

Mr.B.Anandan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent dated 23.02.2018 temporarily suspending the petitioner's driving license from 15.12.2017 to 14.06.2018, on the reason that the petitioner, while driving a bus on 05.12.2017 caused an accident which has resulted in loss of life of a motor cycle rider.

3. It is stated that a criminal case in Crime No.372/2017 under sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered against the

petitioner and the same is still pending. The second respondent seized the driving license of the petitioner and consequently, the present impugned order is passed, after issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that suspending the petitioner's driving license is erroneous, especially, when the criminal case filed against the petitioner is pending and not ended against him. He further submitted that the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice was not considered by the respondents in a proper perspective manner. Learned counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 (P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Dindigul) and a single Judge decision made in W.P.No.16958/2013 dated 01.07.2013 reported in 2013 Writ L.R.843 (S.Duraivelu vs. The Regional Transport Officer, West Thambaram, Chennai & 2 others).

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner can avail the alternative remedy of filing appeal.

6. Heard both sides.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's license was suspended for the period commencing from 15.12.2017 to 14.06.2018. It is also not in dispute that the criminal case filed against the petitioner is still pending and has not reached its finality. Similar question has arisen before the Division Bench of this Court as to whether the Licensing Authority can suspend the license merely because the criminal case was registered against the driver in respect of a road traffic accident. The Division Bench, while considering the said issue and also considering the objection that an appeal has to be filed against the said order has found in paragraph No.11 as follows:

11. The respondent has, in the impugned order, preconcluded the issue that the appellant is guilty of rash and negligent driving, even before the Criminal Court or the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal went into the issue. Even to invoke Section 19(1)(c), it is necessary to show that the Motor vehicle is used in the commission of a cognizable offence. Without making a specific averment regarding the same, the order suspending the driving licence cannot be taken to be passed after due application of mind.

8. While considering the objection with regard to the availability of alternative remedy of appeal is concerned, the Division Bench has rejected such contention. The very same decision was followed by the learned single Judge of this Court reported in 2013 Writ L.R.843 (S.Duraivelu vs. The Regional

Transport Officer, West Thambaram, Chennai & 2 others) wherein the learned Judge has observed in paragraph No.4 as follows:

4. The license of the petitioner was suspended solely on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 304-A IPC. The criminal case is still pending. The factum of involvement of the petitioner in an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code would not give any jurisdiction to the respondent to suspend the license. Therefor, I am of the view that the respondent was not justified in suspending the license of the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to return the driving license forthwith. However, it shall not preclude the respondents from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies specified in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19

(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of Section 19(1)(f) of the Act, are violated. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mk To 1.The Inspector of Police Traffic Investigating Wing Nattranpalli Police Station Vellore District.

2.The Licensing Authority-cumRegional Transport Officer Vaniyambadi Vellore District.

+1 CC TO MR.K.Hariharan, Advocate SR. No.20816 +1 CC TO The government Pleader SR.NO.21419 W.P.No.6282 of 2018 RMP(26/03/2018)