Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1137 (PNJ)

Amar Singh v. Secretary, Transport Department

2005-10-28

M.M.KUMAR

body2005
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The order dated 10.10.2001 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 30.1.2002 (Annexure P-6) are the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The driver licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by order dated 10.10.2001 by the Licensing Authority (Motor)-cum-District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 3. The State Transport Commissioner, respondent No. 2, has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.1.2002, upholding the order of the District Transport Officer. As a consequence of the aforementioned action of respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively, the services of the petitioner, who was appointed as Bus Driver by the Divisional Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking & Director Transport, Union Territory, Chandigarh, vide order dated 24.8.2001 (Annexure P-4), has been discontinued as driver, vide order dated 29.10.2001 (Annexure P-7). 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he passed Matriculation in the year 1990 and started doing IT1 in Mechanical Trade. He had obtained diploma in the year 1993 (Annexure P-2). He is stated to have applied for driving licence during the year 1994-95 to respondent No. 3, which was issued to him after completion of all the required formalities. It is claimed that the petitioner had applied for licence after completion ITI in Mechanical Trade as the-driving licence was required for the purposes of further employment. The licence issued by respondent No. 3 was lost and the matter was reported to Talwara Police Station. On the basis of DDK entry, the petitioner was issued driving licence No. 672 in the year 1994-95, which has further been renewed firstly upto 17.4.1997 to 16.4.2000 and further renewed from 11.4.2000 upto 10.4.2003 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner was appointed as a Bus Driver in the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, U.T. Chandigarh, vide his appointment letter dated 24.8.2001 (Annexure P-4). 3. On the basis of a complaint made by one Ashwani Kumar, an enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 3 with regard to the allegation against the petitioner concerning misrepresentation of his age while obtaining driving licence, which is alleged to have beer, issued by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh). It is claimed that there was no misrepresentation with regard to his date of birth nor he suppressed any material facts. It is claimed that there was no misrepresentation with regard to his date of birth nor he suppressed any material facts. A summary enquiry is alleged to have been conducted mentioning about the Driving Licence No. 2672, issued by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), in which it has been concluded that the petitioner has misrepresented his date of birth as 15.3.1970, which is alleged to be absolutely false and incorrect. It is claimed that the petitioner has been illegally disqualified from driving. The original record was never summoned from Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), which could have shown the original application filed by the petitioner and his date of birth. According to further allegation of the petitioner, the entries mentioned in the register maintained by the office of respondent No. 3 and on which reliance has been placed are false and vexatious, which is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The order of the Appellate Authority has been attacked on the ground that the order is cryptic and non-speaking. 4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3, the stand taken is that the petitioner had applied for renewal of his driving licence, which was issued by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), vide No. 2672/RDL-91-92 for L.T.V., M.T.V. and H.T.V. The aforementioned licence was valid upto 18.4.1994. It is claimed that the petitioner never applied for a fresh driving licence to respondent No. 3 and the licence had already been issued by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), was renewed vide No. 1783 on 23.5.1994. which was valid up to 22.5.1997 after adopting due procedure and taking necessary fee vide receipt No. 8460/57 for Rs.15/-, dated 2.5.1994. It has been admitted that a duplicate Driving Licence No. 672 was issued on 14.3.1995, which was to be valid up to 22.5.1997 and the same was further renewed vide endorsement No. 954, dated 17.4.1997. It remained valid up to 16,4.2000. It was still further renewed vide endorsement No. 509 dated 11.4.2000 upto 10.4.2003. It is further asserted that the petitioner has deliberately reported the matter to the police alleging the loss of his driving licence to conceal the fact pertaining to his date of birth. It remained valid up to 16,4.2000. It was still further renewed vide endorsement No. 509 dated 11.4.2000 upto 10.4.2003. It is further asserted that the petitioner has deliberately reported the matter to the police alleging the loss of his driving licence to conceal the fact pertaining to his date of birth. With regard to the complaint of Ashwani Kumar, respondent No. 3 has taken the stand that the oomplaint was thoroughly investigated and it was found that at the time of issuance of driving licence by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (And-hra Pradesh), the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 15.3.1970 as per the office record, whereas his actual date of birth according to his Matriculation Certificate (An-nexure P-l) is 15.3.1974. It shows that in 1991 when the petitioner applied for issuance of fresh driving licence to the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), he was 17 years and 3 days old. It is, thus, concluded that by virtue of his young age the petitioner was not found entitled to obtain learners driving licence for LTV under Section 4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act). It has further been claimed that during the enquiry it was proved beyond doubt that the petitioner had obtained the original driving licence from Ranga Reddy by misrepresentation and concealment of fact regarding his date of birth, which was mentioned as 15.3.1970, while his actual date of birth is 15.3.1974. The action of respondent No. 3 disqualifying the petitioner from holding the driving licence is claimed to be legal and just under Section 19(1)(e) of the Act. 5. Mr. G.S. Bal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has, in fact, applied for a fresh licence in the year 1994 and did not request for renewal of his earlier licence. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was issued duplicate driving licence on the basis of a DDR report, which was renewed twice and the same was to remain valid up to 10.4.2003. Learned counsel has insisted that respondents have illegally recorded the finding that the licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), whereas the petitioner has repeatedly requested respondent No. 3 to summon the original record from Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh; which was not done. 6. Mr. Learned counsel has insisted that respondents have illegally recorded the finding that the licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), whereas the petitioner has repeatedly requested respondent No. 3 to summon the original record from Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh; which was not done. 6. Mr. Rakesh Verma, learned State counsel has submitted that an enquiry has been held and there are categorical findings showing that the petitioner had obtained licence from the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh) by misrepresenting his age and no licence could be issued had he disclosed his correct age in the year 1991 because he was barely 17 years old. Learned counsel has insisted that in order to camouflage the aforementioned facts the petitioner has indulged in the usual method of lodging DDR and has obtained a duplicate. Copy of the licence, which has been renewed twice. According to the learned counsel the petitioner deserves to be disqualified under Section 19(1)(e) of the Act as he had obtained the driving licence by misrepresentation and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to drive a transport vehicle unless he complete the age of 20 years. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. The findings recorded by respondent No. 3 that the original driving licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), has not been controverted by filing any replication. It has also not been controverted that the findings with regard to age of the petitioner were incorrect, therefore it has to be taken as established that the original licence was obtained by the petitioner from the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh) where the petitioner has shown his date of birth as 15.3.1970, whereas his actual date of birth is 15.3.1974 (P-l). According to Section 4(2) of the Act, no driving licence for driving a transport vehicle could be issued to a person under the age of 20 years. Section 4 of the Act is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- 4. According to Section 4(2) of the Act, no driving licence for driving a transport vehicle could be issued to a person under the age of 20 years. Section 4 of the Act is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- 4. Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles.- (1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place: Provided that a motor cycle with engine capacity not exceeding 50cc may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of sixteen years. (2) Subject to the provisions of Section 18 no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public piace. (3) No learners licence or driving licence shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has made an application unless he is eligible to drive that class of vehicle under this section. 8. Section 19(1)(e) of the Act further provides that if the driving licence has been obtained by mispresentation or fraud then an order can be made by the Licensing Authority to disqualify such a person for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive any class or description of vehicle specified in the licence. The aforementioned Section 19 of reproduced hereunder for facility of reference: 19. The aforementioned Section 19 of reproduced hereunder for facility of reference: 19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence.- (1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he - (a) is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard; or (b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or (c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence; or (d) has by his previous conduct as driver of a motor vehicle shown that his driving is likely to be attended with danger to the public; or (e) has obtained any driving licence or a licence to drive a particular class or description of motor vehicle by fraud or misrepresentation; or (f) has committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, having regard to the objects of this Act; or (g) has failed to submit to, or has not passed, the tests referred to in the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 22; or (h) being a person under the age of eighteen years who has been granted a learners licence or a driving licence with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the holder of the licence and has ceased to be in such care, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order- (i) disqualifying that person for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence; or (ii) revoke any such licence. (2) Where an order under Sub-section (1) is made, the holder of a driving licence shall forthwith surrender his driving licence to the licensing authority making the order, if the driving licence has not already been surrendered and the licensing authority shall, - (a) if the driving licence is a driving licence issued under this Act, keep it until the disqualification has expired or has been removed; or (b) if it is not a driving licence issued under this Act, endorse the disqualification upon it and send it to the licensing authority by which it was issued; or (c) in the case of revocation of any licence, endorse the revocation upon it and if it is not the authority which issued the same, intimate the fact of revocation to the authority which issued that licence: Provided that where the driving licence of a person authorises him to drive more than one class or description of motor vehicle and the order, made under Sub-section (1), disqualifies him from driving any specified class or description of motor vehicles, the licensing authority shall endorse the disqualification upon the driving licence and return the same to the holder. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order made by a licensing authority under Sub-section (1) may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, appeal to the prescribed authority and such appellate authority shall give notice to the licensing authority and hear either party if so required by that party and may pass such order as it thinks fit and an order passed by any such appellate authority shall be final. 9. A perusal of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act shows that the Licensing Authority may make an order disqualifying a person, like the petitioner, for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any class or description of vehicles if it is, inter alia, proved that the driving licence was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. It has been proved that the petitioner obtained driving licence by misrepresenting his age and, therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-5) and the appellate order passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure P-6), except that the period of disqualification has not been specified. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 11. However, in view of the provisions as contained in Section 19(1)(i) of the Act, respondent No. 2 was required to specify the period of disqualification for holding or obtaining any driving licence. Such a disqualification cannot-entitled throughout the life of the petitioner. Therefore, 1 am of the considered view that the petitioner has already suffered a lot by virtue of orders dated 10.10.2001 and 30.1.2002 and his disqualification cannot continue any further. If the petitioner applies for the driving licence afresh, his application may be considered in accordance with law without being influenced by the orders dated 10.10.2001 (Annexure P-5) and 30.1.2002 (Annexure P-6). If such an application is made, the same shall be disposed of within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt.