Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1476 (KER)

Santu Thomas v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

2017-12-05

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is the holder of a driving licence bearing No.40/2480/2005, is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 proceedings of the respondent dated 27.10.2017, issued in exercise of the powers under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for brevity, 'the Act'). 2. On 25.10.2017, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 notice to show cause why proceedings shall not be initiated against him under Section 19 of the Act disqualifying him from holding the driving licence or to revoke the driving licence. The said notice was issued in connection with Crime No.2386/2017 of Vaikom Police Station, registered in connection with a motor accident occurred on 11.10.2017, alleging offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 involving a goods carriage driven by the petitioner, resulting in the death of a pillion rider in a motorcycle. 3. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply. On 27.10.2017, the petitioner was heard by the respondent and thereafter, he has been issued with Ext.P3 proceedings dated 27.10.2017 on a printed/cyclostyled proforma with some insertions here or there and by filling the blanks, whereby he is disqualified under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act from holding driving licence bearing No.40/2480/2005 for a period of one year, from 27.10.2017 to 26.10.2018. In Ext.P3 proceedings, the respondent has also referred to Ext.P4 Circular No.21/2008 issued by the Transport Commissioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondent. 5. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether an interference is warranted on Ext.P3 order of the respondent, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the said order is appelable before the Deputy Transport Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act. 6. Section 19 of the Act deals with the power of the licensing authority to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence or to revoke such licence. 6. Section 19 of the Act deals with the power of the licensing authority to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence or to revoke such licence. As per sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, 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 habitual drunkard; or (b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 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 the 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 learner's 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. Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides that for the purpose of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act, the Commission of the acts made mention in clauses (1) to (25) of Rule 21 by a holder of a driving licence shall constitute nuisance or danger to public. 7. Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides that for the purpose of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act, the Commission of the acts made mention in clauses (1) to (25) of Rule 21 by a holder of a driving licence shall constitute nuisance or danger to public. 7. As per sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act, 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. The appellate authority notified under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act is the Deputy Transport Commissioner. 8. The provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act makes it explicitly clear that, for disqualifying a 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 for revoking any such licence, the satisfaction of the licensing authority, after giving the holder of such licencee an opportunity of being heard, of the existence of any of the circumstances made mention in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) is a pre-requisite. Further, the licensing authority has to record the reasons in writing for disqualifying a 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 for revoking any such licence. 9. In the instant case, Ext.P3 proceedings of the respondent dated 27.10.2017 is on a printed/cyclostyled proforma with some insertions here or there and by filling the blanks, whereby the petitioner is disqualified under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act from holding driving licence bearing No.40/2480/2005 for a period of one year, from 27.10.2017 to 26.10.2018. Ext.P3 proceedings, shows a mechanical exercise of power by the licensing authority and as such, the same is vitiated by total non-application of mind. The mandatory pre-requisites for an order under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, consistent with the principles of natural justice, are missing in Ext.P3. Ext.P3 proceedings, shows a mechanical exercise of power by the licensing authority and as such, the same is vitiated by total non-application of mind. The mandatory pre-requisites for an order under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, consistent with the principles of natural justice, are missing in Ext.P3. 10. In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union, [ (1974) 3 SCC 318 ] the Apex Court, while considering the challenge made against an award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held that the giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi judicial authorities to the Apex Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. 11. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. 11. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers, [ (2010) 4 SCC 785 ] the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. 12. Though an appeal is provided under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act before the appellate authority, Ext.P3 proceedings of the licensing authority, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition, virtually makes the appellate jurisdiction nugatory and ineffective, inasmuch as, such an order passed in a mechanical exercise of power will be of little assistance to the appellate authority while analysing the reasoning essential to such a decision. Therefore, no purpose will be served by relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act against an order issued by the licensing authority under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act on a printed/cyclostyled performa with some insertions here or there and by filling the blanks. 13. In such circumstances, Ext.P3 proceedings of the respondent licensing authority is set aside and the said respondent is directed to pass a reasoned order in conformity with the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, taking note of the orders and circulars governing the field, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner and Ext.P3 proceedings of the licensing authority has been set aside only for the reasons stated hereinbefore.