Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 579 (HP)

Surender Singh Sh. Jarpu Ram v. State of H. P.

2021-08-20

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Petitioner has assailed cancellation of his Driving Licence, vide order dated 10.10.2019, by Registering and Licensing Authority, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. in pursuance to order dated 06.07.2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. (II), Shimla, H.P. in summary proceedings, in Crime No. HP-13300190604212359, titled as State of H.P. vs. H.P. 10B0547. 2. The petitioner was challaned under Sections 181 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act), as he was found driving vehicle without licence in drunken condition. On 06.07.2019, petitioner had tendered his driving licence before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. (II), Shimla, H.P. and, therefore, proceedings against him, under Section 181 of the M.V. Act, were dropped by learned Magistrate. However, referring direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety (in short the ‘Committee’) bearing No. 05/2014/CORS, Part-3, dated 18.08.2015, driving licence of the petitioner bearing No. HP-10-20050014758 was ordered to be sent to the concerned authority for its cancellation and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 185 of the M.V. Act, was also imposed upon the petitioner for driving in drunken condition. 3. In compliance of order passed by learned Magistrate, Registering and Licensing Authority, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. had passed impugned order dated 10.10.2019, whereby driving licence of the petitioner was cancelled w.e.f. 10.10.2019 under Section 185 of the M.V. Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by referring direction of the Committee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record relevant directions dated 18.08.2015, issued by the Committee, referring which driving licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. Learned counsel has pointed out that in these directions, at S. No. 4, the Committee has directed the States/UTs and their concerned Departments to take certain actions, which include suspension of the licence for a period of not less than 3 months under Section 19 of the M.V. Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 in the following situations:- (i) Driving at a speed exceeding the specified limit which in the Committee's view would also include red light jumping. (ii) Carrying overload in goods carriages and carrying persons in goods carriages. (iii) Driving vehicles under the influence of drink and drugs. (iv) Using mobile phone while driving a vehicle. 5. (ii) Carrying overload in goods carriages and carrying persons in goods carriages. (iii) Driving vehicles under the influence of drink and drugs. (iv) Using mobile phone while driving a vehicle. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General has invited attention of the Court to the directions contained at S. Nos. 3 and 5, wherein at S. No. 3 it has been communicated by the Committee that stern action against the violators of law should be taken exercising discretion under Section 19 of the M.V. Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Act by passing an order disqualifying the offender from holding a driving licence for a specified period or also imprisonment wherever it is provided under the law, and in directions contained at S. No. 5 the Committee has directed that in case of driving a vehicle under the influence of drinks or drugs, the police should prosecute the offender and seek imprisonment as prescribed under Section 185 of the M.V. Act, even for the first offence. 6. On perusal of directions of the Committee, it is evident that it is not mandate of the directions of the Committee that for driving a vehicle under the influence of drinks or drugs, licence cannot be cancelled. In direction No. 3 it is directed that offender can be disqualified for holding a driving licence for a specified period. Specified period may also include period of rest life of the offender. In addition, offender is also to be prosecuted seeking his imprisonment even for the first offence in case of drunken driving. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. (II) Shimla, H.P. or Registering and Licensing Authority, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is first time offender and incident had taken place on 04.06.2019 at 9.23 p.m. and thereafter licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on 10.10.2019. Degree of intoxication is also not on record and now period of about 2 years has passed and petitioner has remorse for his act and conduct and he undertakes to not to repeat such mistake again. 8. Considering persuasive submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, taking lenient view and relevant directions of the Committee contained at S. Nos. Degree of intoxication is also not on record and now period of about 2 years has passed and petitioner has remorse for his act and conduct and he undertakes to not to repeat such mistake again. 8. Considering persuasive submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, taking lenient view and relevant directions of the Committee contained at S. Nos. 3 and 4 disqualification of the petitioner to hold a driving licence instead forever is converted into disqualification of the petitioner from holding a driving licence till 31.10.2021. 9. After 31.10.2021, licence of the petitioner may be revived with endorsement in his record regarding his disqualification on account of drunken driving with complete details but on making application by the petitioner to the concerned Registering and Licensing Authority with undertaking therein that in future he shall not drive the vehicle under the influence of drinks or drugs and in case he is found repeating the same offence again, his licence shall be cancelled forever disqualifying him from holding driving licence for throughout life. 10. It is also apt to record that by taking a lenient view and keeping in view lapse of time till date from the date of commission of crime, proceedings before learned Magistrate are not being ordered to be revived to prosecute the petitioner for his imprisonment under Section 185 of the M.V. Act. 11. In view of above, present petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.