JUDGMENT : P.B. Suresh Kumar, J. Ext.P2 order by which the driving licence of the petitioner has been revoked, and Ext.P10 order confirming Ext.P2 order in appeal, are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was the driver of a stage carriage. The stage carriage driven by the petitioner met with an accident causing injuries to several persons, of which six succumbed to their injuries. The petitioner was consequently charge sheeted under Sections 324, 326, 308 and 304 of Indian Penal Code and the case is pending. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent revoked the driving licence of the petitioner, invoking his powers under Section 19(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act). Ext.P2 is the order passed by the fourth respondent in this connection. Though the petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order in appeal, the third respondent confirmed Ext.P2 order, as per Ext.P10 order. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P10 orders. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Special Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the licence of the petitioner has been revoked merely on account of the registration of the case against him and that the power under Section 19(1) of the Act cannot be invoked on that ground. Relying on a decision of the Madras High Court, it was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power under the said section cannot be invoked before the culmination of the criminal case. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at any rate, the licence of the petitioner should not have been revoked especially when even the court authorised to try the case registered against the petitioner is empowered only to disqualify the petitioner from holding the licence for a specified period. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that the power of the criminal court to disqualify a person from holding licence or revoke the licence and the power of the licensing authority under Section 19(1) of the Act operate on different spheres and therefore, there is no need for the licensing authority to wait till the culmination of the criminal case for exercising power under Section 19(1) of the Act. 5. 5. Section 19(1) of the Act, to the extent relevant, reads thus: Section 19(1): If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he- xxx xxx xxx xxx (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 xxx xxx xxx xxx 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. It is evident from the said statutory provision that the power under Section 19(1)(f) of the Act can be invoked, if it is established that the licensee has committed an act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government. The prescription of the Central Government is contained in Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the Rules). The said Rule reads thus: "21. Powers of licensing authority to disqualify.- For the purpose of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 19, the commission of the following acts by a holder of a driving licence shall constitute nuisance or danger to the public, namely:- 1. Theft of motor vehicle. 2. Assault on passengers. 3. Theft of personal effects of passengers. 4. Theft of goods carried in goods carriages. 5. Transport of goods prohibited under any law. 6. Driver while driving a transport vehicle, engages himself in activity which is likely to disturb his concentration. 7. Abduction of passengers. 8. Carrying overload in goods carriages. 9. Driving at speed exceeding the specified limit. 10. Carrying persons in goods carriage, either inside the driver's cabin in excess of its capacity or on the vehicle, whether for hire or not. 11. Failing to comply with the provisions of Section 134. 12. Failure to stop when signalled to do so by any person authorised to do so. 13. Misbehaviour with and showing discourtesy to passengers, intending passengers or consignors and consignees of goods. 14. Smoking while driving public service vehicles. 15. 11. Failing to comply with the provisions of Section 134. 12. Failure to stop when signalled to do so by any person authorised to do so. 13. Misbehaviour with and showing discourtesy to passengers, intending passengers or consignors and consignees of goods. 14. Smoking while driving public service vehicles. 15. Abandoning vehicle in a public place causing inconvenience to other road users or to passengers in the vehicle. 16. Driving vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs. 17. Interfering with any person mounting or preparing to mount upon any other vehicle. 18. Allowing any person to sit or placing things in such a way as to impede the driver from having a clear vision of the road or proper control of the vehicle. 19. Not stopping a stage carriage at approved stopping places for a sufficient period of time in a safe and convenient position upon demand or signal of the conductor or any passenger desiring to alight from the vehicle and unless there is no room in the vehicle, upon demand or signal of any person desiring to becoming a passenger. 20. Loitering or unduly delaying any journey and not proceeding to the destination as near as may be in accordance with the time table pertaining to the vehicle, or, where there is no such time table, with all reasonable despatch. 21. Not driving a contract carriage, in the absence of a reasonable cause, to the destination named by the hirer by the shortest route. 22. The driver of a motor cab not accepting the first offer of hire which may be made to him irrespective of the length of the journey for which such offer is made. 23. The driver of a motor cab demanding or extracting any fare in excess to that to which he is legally entitled or refusing to ply motor cab. 24. Abandoning a transport vehicle as a mark of protest or agitation of any kind or strike in a public place or in any other place in a manner causing obstructions and inconvenience to the public or passengers or other users of such places. 25. Using mobile phone while driving a vehicle." Ext.P2 order, to the extent relevant, reads as follows: "This authority has examined the relevant documents including the report of the field officer. The said elaborated and extensive report was minutely scrutinised. 25. Using mobile phone while driving a vehicle." Ext.P2 order, to the extent relevant, reads as follows: "This authority has examined the relevant documents including the report of the field officer. The said elaborated and extensive report was minutely scrutinised. This authority also carefully examine the detailed sketch of the accident scene furnished by the enquiry officer in which it is clear that the accident occurred on the right side of the road and hence it is clear from the detailed report of the enquiry officer and sketch of the scene, as well as the nature and circumstance reveals that the accident occurred due to the blatant negligence and rashness due to over speed on the part of the driver." As evident from the extracted portion of Ext.P2 order, the licence of the petitioner has been revoked as it was found that the accident occurred due to the over speed of the petitioner. While Section 19(1)(f) of the Act brings acts which are likely to cause danger to the public within the scope of that section, Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules does not specify over speed as an act within the scope of Section 19(1)(f) of the Act. It was pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that the case of the petitioner would come under Clause 9 of Rule 21 of the Rules. I am unable to agree with the said stand of the learned Special Government Pleader, for, what is provided in the said clause is 'Driving at speed exceeding the specified limit'. But, that does not mean that power under Section 19(1)(f) cannot be invoked for over speeding. In as much as Section 19(1)(f) of the Act confers power on the licencing authority to disqualify a person from holding licence or revoke the licence issued to him, if he commits an act which is likely to cause danger to the public, the specific acts defined in Rule 21 of the Rules can only be illustrative and not exhaustive, for, all acts which would cause nuisance or danger to the public cannot be contemplated and enumerated. It is all the more so as in the instant case, there could be still graver acts of nuisance and danger and it cannot be conceived that the statute contemplated disqualification from holding licence and revocation of licence only for the trivial acts of nuisance and danger. It is all the more so as in the instant case, there could be still graver acts of nuisance and danger and it cannot be conceived that the statute contemplated disqualification from holding licence and revocation of licence only for the trivial acts of nuisance and danger. In other words, the power under Section 19(1) of the Act can be invoked even in a case where the act does not fall under any of the clauses in Rule 21 of the Rules, if the act committed by the person concerned would fall under Section 19(1)(f) of the Act. In the said view of the matter, the exercise of the power under Section 19(1) (f) of the Act in the case of the petitioner on the ground of over speed cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 6. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power under Section 19(1) of the Act cannot be invoked before the culmination of the criminal case is no longer res integra. It is held by this Court in Peethambaran v. Additional Licensing Authority ( 2012 (3) KLT 622 ) that the power of the licensing authority to disqualify a person from holding a licence or revoke his licence and the power of the court to disqualify a person from holding licence or suspend or cancel his licence under Sections 20 and 22 of the Act operate on different spheres and therefore, if the licensing authority is satisfied with the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 19(1) of the Act, it can exercise the power under the said section without waiting for the culmination of the criminal case. 7. It is seen that under Section 20 of the Act, the court trying a case of the nature of one which is charge sheeted against the petitioner is empowered only to disqualify the accused from holding licence for a specified period, if it is found that he has committed the offences alleged against him. As such, according to me, the fourth respondent was not justified in revoking the licence of the petitioner, when the act found against the petitioner is only over speeding. In the light of the impugned orders, the petitioner has been prevented from holding driving licence for the last almost 3 years. As such, according to me, the fourth respondent was not justified in revoking the licence of the petitioner, when the act found against the petitioner is only over speeding. In the light of the impugned orders, the petitioner has been prevented from holding driving licence for the last almost 3 years. The said disqualification, according to me, is sufficient in the context of the statutory provision for the act found to have been committed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed in part, modifying the impugned orders and directing disqualification of the petitioner from holding licence for a period of three years. Since the three year term of disqualification directed is over, the fourth respondent shall renew the licence of the petitioner, if applied for by him.