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

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/137/2022 S. M. Firdous Ali ... Petitioner Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others ... Respondents Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. Salim Mohammed ... for the respondents April 28, 2022 [GNC] Item No. 6 The petitioner has challenged an order No.746 dated March 17, 2021 passed by the Licensing Authority, office of the Directorate of State Transport, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair. The Driving Licence of the petitioner was disqualified for a period of five years with immediate effect. The sole ground of challenge to the said order is violation of section 19(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The petitioner submits that the mandate of the statute has not been followed by the authority and the driving licence was disqualified without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The order impugned before this court, does not reflect that a notice of hearing was served upon the petitioner, before the authority had taken the decision, disqualifying the driving licence of the petitioner.

Although, it is a fact that on an earlier occasion as well, the driving licence of the petitioner had been disqualified,

no proceedings appear to have been initiated in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The records further reveal that the petitioner was also disengaged from service, by an order dated March 18, 2021. The order of disengagement of the petitioner, has not been challenged in this proceeding.

The only grievance of the petitioner is that the authority ought to have heard him before exercising the power under section 19-(1)(f) of the Act of 1988. An opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner. The petitioner should have been allowed to defend his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence in his support.

Mr. Mohammed, the leaned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Administration submits that the records do not reveal that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner.

Thus, without going into the correctness of the order passed by Licencing Authority, the order impugned is set aside, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and also for violation of the provisions of Rule 19(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The order dated March 17, 2021 is quashed. The authority is directed to hear the matter de-novo, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be allowed to inspect all the records and reports that may be in the possession of the authority with regard to his conduct and

the past proceedings held against him. The petitioner shall be entitled to file a written version in support of his contentions. All oral and documentary evidences in support of his contentions shall be adduced before the authority. The authority shall dispose of the entire proceeding in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the written version of the petitioner. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated within the aforementioned period. The authority shall deal with the issues independently. This order shall not be construed as a direction of the court, permitting the petitioner to drive any vehicle.

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

The parties are directed to act on the server copy of this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)