The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in R.C.No.B4/49199/2017 dated 08.08.2017, quash the same and direct the first respondent to return the petitioner's original driving license No.TN-01-19900006567.
2. According to the petitioner, he was working as a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Ponneri Bus Depot. According to the petitioner, as per the FIR, when he was on duty on 20.07.2017 and while he was driving the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-N-1050, plying from Ponneri Bus Depot to Andarkuppam, the bus met with an accident near Nelcast Company Gate, and a person aged about 20 years, who was returning to Andarkuppam in his friend's motorcycle had died. However, the petitioner contended that his bus did not involve in the accident and that he only helped the victim. The petitioner also made a representation dated 21.07.2017 to the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Redhills, Chennai to that effect. However, the first respondent, without examining any eye witness, has issued the impugned order in R.C.No.B4/49199/2017 dated 08.08.2017 suspending the licence for three months from 20.07.2017 to 19.01.2018 invoking Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Criminal Case registered against the petitioner in Crime No.406 of 2017 on 20.07.2017 under Sections 279 and 304(a) of IPC is pending investigation. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent, even without examining any witness or any finding given by the Criminal Court, imposed the punishment by suspending the licence for three months. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 [P.Sethuram V. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul] wherein the Division Bench held as follows:
“...
10. Apart from the above, there is no allegation, either in the notice or in the order impugned in the writ petition, that the appellant is a habitual criminal or habitual drunkard, so as to attract Clause (a) of Section 19(1) of the Act. Similarly, neither the show cause notice nor the order impugned in the writ petition, imputes the appellant with any of the ingredients necessary under Clauses (b) to (h) of Sub Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. Except stating that as per the report of the Inspector of Police, the appellant was guilty of rash and negligent driving, the impugned order does not indicate the category in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19(1) under which the case of the appellant would fall.
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.”
4. As already stated, since the first respondent has imposed the punishment suspending the licence for three months, even prior to the completion of trial against the petitioner in the Criminal case registered against him, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. Following the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the judgment reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 [P.Sethuram V. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul] the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The first respondent is directed to return the Driving License of the petitioner within a week's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it shall not preclude the respondents from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies specified in the Motor Vehicles Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, are violated.
6. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 11.09.2017 Internet : Yes/No KM Note to the Registry: Issue order copy on 14.09.2017. To
1. The Regional Transport Officer, Redhills, Chennai-52.
2. The Inspector of Police, Ponneri Police Station, Ponneri.
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
KM W.P.No.22558 of 2017 11.09.2017