S.M Firdous Ali v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/88/2024 S.M.Firdous Ali Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents April 12, 2024 [SR] Item No.13 The writ petition is directed against an order by the Secretary Transport on July 18, 2023. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the adverse reports on which the Administration relied during the proceeding culminated into the impugned order dated July 18, 2023 were not provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was unaware as to the contents of such report which prompted the authorities in passing the impugned order.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-opposition and the proceeding taken against the petitioner at the relevant time. He submits that, the order at page 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition being dated March 11, 2021 was never communicated to the petitioner and therefore, cannot be acted upon.

Administration is represented.

As a rule, any report which is adverse to the delinquent, is required to be shared with the delinquent before a final order of adjudication is passed therein even in the administrative side.

In the facts of the present case, the petitioner was a driver of the Transport Department. His licence was seized on February 18, 2021. Seizure took place from the petitioner himself. Seizure was recorded by a writing dated February 25, 2021. Seizure of the licence of the petitioner was made from the petitioner to the knowledge of the petitioner. He took no steps with regard thereto. He cannot now feign ignorance with regard thereto Despite his licence being seized, he continued to drive a government vehicle without informing the authorities as to the seizure. Seizure of the licence obviously is with certain ramification and the petitioner as the driver and holder of the licence is expected to be aware of such ramification. He chose to drive a bus with public boarding such bus despite his licence being seized by the authorities to his notice and knowledge.

Petitioner was found to be driving such public vehicle in a dangerous manner on March 16, 2021. He was found in a drunken position with a breath analysis being carried out and alcometer reading to be 232.3 mg/100ml.

Petitioner never challenged the seizure of his driving licence. Petitioner never contested the factum of him being found driving dangerously in a drunken condition and without licence. All these materials were relied upon by the Secretary in finding the petitioner guilty in the impugned order. These materials are certainly adverse to the petitioner. Petitioner knew of all of these materials at the relevant point of time when they were occurring. No material unknown to the petitioner was relied upon. In respect of the seizure of the driving licence, he took no steps. Seizure was

accepted by the petitioner. Thereafter he drove a public vehicle putting the lives and properties of the public in jeopardy. He drove such public vehicle in a drunken condition.

Plea of breach of principles of natural justice of the petitioner in such factual matrix is unacceptable.

In such circumstances, I find no material irregularity in the impugned order requiring any interference by a Writ Court. WPA/88/2024 is dismissed accordingly without any order as to costs.

( Debangsu Basak, J. )