Madras High Court
S.Krishnan vs The Licensing Authority on 17 April, 2012
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: R.Banumathi, B.Rajendran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/04/2012 Coram THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.A.(MD)No.783 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2008 S.Krishnan ... Appellant Vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office (Madurai North), Madurai. ... Respondent PRAYER Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order dated 24.10.2008 in dismissing Writ Petition in W.P.No.8204 of 2008 filed by the appellant challenging the impugned order of the respondent dated 02.09.2008 suspending the driving licence of the appellant. !For Appellant ... Mr.S.Arunachalam ^For Respondent ... Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader :JUDGMENT
B.RAJENDRAN, J.
The writ appeal has been filed as against the order dated 24.10.2008 made in W.P.No.8204 of 2008.
2. According to the appellant who is the driver working in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. He was driving the bus between Anna bus Stand and Palamedu on 12.08.2008 at about 5.45 p.m. when the bus reached a bus stop called Ayyer Bungalow stop the passengers got down from the bus and also boarded the bus. According to the appellant when he was about to start the bus from the above said bus stop the passengers of the bus told him that an aged woman passenger fell down on the road from the front side steps of the bus. Immediately, he stopped the vehicle and the said aged woman passenger was found no serious injury and in conscious stage and took her to the hospital. Later on, after seven days, he was told that she was died. According to him, the accident happened not due to any fault on his part but an F.I.R. was registered against him under Section 304 A I.P.C. Subsequently, on 12.08.2008 the police got his driving licence and the same was entrusted to the respondent and thereafter he was issued with a show-cause notice asking him to submit explanation as to why action should not be taken against suspension of driving licence for the above said accident. For the above said show-cause notice, he had submitted his explanation on 26.08.2008 stating that he was not responsible for the accident and the criminal case was not yet over and therefore, he requested the respondent to drop the proceedings against him. After submission of the explanation, the impugned order dated 02.09.2008 was passed suspending his driving licence for a period of six months from 26.08.2008 to 25.02.2009. According to him, the order is per se illegal as the respondent has not followed the Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order itself passed solely on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Police which is only the investigation and the criminal case has not come to an end. No charge sheet at that time was filed and of course he also would contend that this order is passed without jurisdiction. Challenging the impugned order he filed a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus. The said Writ Petition was stoutly contested by the respondent and the learned Judge has dismissed the same on the ground that all the ingredients of Section 19 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been followed, especially, the order has been passed under Section 19(1)(c) as there is no embargo that the suspension could be done only after the conviction in the criminal Court. Further, the learned Single Judge held that there is an appeal provision as provided under Section 19(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and without availing alternative remedy the appellant has straightaway come to this Court with the present writ petition hence, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Aggrieved against the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed.
3. We have heard both parties.
4. The main ground of attack of the appellant was that the impugned order suspending the driving licence for a period of six months is no basis at all as it is passed merely on the basis of an F.I.R when admittedly a criminal case has not ended convicting him of any offence at that stage. He would also contend that the impugned order was passed based on the report of the Investigation Officer. He would contend that there is no provision under Section 19(1) of the Act to suspend the driving licence before ever he being indicted of the offence. In this connection, it is worthwhile to extract Section 19(1)(c), 2(a) and (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as under:
"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) ...
(b) ...
(c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence;
...
(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; (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."
5. The main contention of the appellant is that merely because criminal cases are registered and the same are pending, the driving licence cannot be suspended as there is no finding given by the appropriate Court fixing the guilt of the appellant. It is admitted by the appellant that there is an F.I.R. as against him for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. It is further stated by him in the affidavit that the vehicle was stopped in the bus stand, people were alighting the bus and thereafter when he was about to start the bus, he heard a sound of the passengers that an aged woman passenger fell down on the road from the front side steps of the bus. This is the stand taken in the writ petition. After the accident, the respondent department has given a show-cause notice under Section 19(1) of the Act. For the show-case notice, the petitioner had submitted his explanation. In the explanation he would state as under:
"29.07.2008-k; Bjjp ovd;59-0667 BgUe;jpy; mz;zhepiyak;-ghyBkL tHpj;jlj;jpy; gzpahw;wpBdd;. md;W khiy 5.30 kzp mstpy; ma;ah; gA;fsh g!; epiyaj;jpy; vdJ BgUe;J epWj;jp gazpfis nwf;fptpLk; BghJ BgUe;jpd; Kd; gof;fl;L tHpahf Rkhh; 60 taJ kjpf;fj;jf;f xU bgz; gazp nwA;Fk;BghJ rhiyapy; fhy; jLkhwp fPBH tpGe;J jiyapy; mogl;Ltpl;lJ. kdpjhgpkhd Kiwapy; ehDk; vdJ elj;JdUk; kJiu muR nuh$h$p kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;irf;F Brh;j;Bjhk;. muR kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;ir bgw;W te;j Bkw;fz;l gazp fle;j 5.8.2008-k; Bjjp khiy 3 kzp mstpy; nwe;Jtpl;ljhf vdf;F bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ."
6. In the above explanation, he gives a different version that the passenger was alighting from the bus and in that process after she got down from the bus she fell down. Be that as it may. The section contemplates that in the event of an accident if a person has committed an offence under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act as stated above by which an accident is caused by the use of the motor vehicle whereby a cognizable offence is made definitely, the authority can take action under Section 19 of the Act. In this case, admittedly, the passenger died due to the injuries caused by falling down from the bus. In this case, a cognizable offence is made out as against the appellant under Section 304-A of I.P.C. by virtue of carelessly driving the vehicle which resulted in the death of a person. Therefore, the Act contemplates initiation of action after following the principles of natural justice. In this case admittedly the show-cause notice was given and he was given sufficient time for submitting his explanation. He had also submitted his explanation. Though he was given time for further enquiry, he did not participate in the same. Thereafter, after seven days the authority has rightly considered his explanation and clearly stated that the explanation submitted by the appellant was not an acceptable explanation. Thereafter, the order of suspension of driving licence came to be passed. We find even now the explanation is contrary to the affidavit filed by the appellant in the writ petition.
7. In any view of the matter, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge that there is no specific embargo that an action under Section 19(1) of the Act could be taken only if there is a conviction. Section 19 itself gives the power to the authority to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence when the licensing authority is satisfied after giving notice to the licensee and enumerated 10 disqualification clauses. One among them was Section19(1) (c) which clearly states that when the vehicle is used and a cognizable offence is made out all that is required is the authority should satisfy itself whether the petitioner has utilized the vehicle which resulted in a cognizable offence. Admittedly, this appellant used the vehicle and caused the death of a person. Therefore, it was rightly stated that only because of an F.I.R. registered against the appellant, there cannot be a suspension.
8. In this connection, we also would like to cull out the Government of Tamil Nadu State Transport Authority's road accident data which was extracted in an order of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.Nos.18042 and 18490 of 2010 which is also a case arising out of suspension of driving licence. The data reads as follow:
"GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU State Transport Authority ROAD ACCIDENT DATA FROM 1993 TO 2009 TAMIL NADU Year Fatal Grievous Minor Injury Non-Injury Total N.A Accidents Injury 1993 6528 7349 3562 5100 17957 27226 6878 34925 1994 7027 7798 4199 6091 18950 28789 6861 37037 1995 7974 8773 4440 6380 21661 31922 7610 41685 1996 8079 9028 4474 7383 22151 31198 7493 42197 1997 7947 8755 4542 6567 23362 34010 8352 44203 1998 8510 9801 6562 8525 23862 33970 7789 46723 1999 8734 9653 5276 7287 27231 34157 6845 48086 2000 8269 9300 5278 8496 29137 44910 6239 48923 2001 8579 9571 5442 8354 30963 45928 6994 51978 2002 9012 9939 5830 8697 32183 46433 6478 53503 2003 8393 9275 5163 8557 31600 46685 5869 51025 2004 8733 9507 4875 7642 33222 49641 5678 52508 2005 8844 9760 5214 7815 34669 54152 5151 53878 2006 10055 11009 4630 6833 36262 57508 4198 55145 2007 11034 12036 4498 6873 39494 64226 4114 59140 2008 11813 12784 4426 6696 39193 63555 4977 60409 2009 12727 13746 4448 6721 39676 63783 3943 60794 N.A : No of Accidents N P K: No of persons killed N P I : No of persons Injured Source: DGP, Chennai"
The number of road accidents and the causes for such accidents during the year 2009 in the state of Tamil Nadu are as follows:
"Government of Tamil Nadu State Transport Authority NUMBER OF ROAD ACCIDENTS ACCORDING TO CAUSES DURING THE YEAR 2009 (FROM JANUARY '2009 TO DECEMBER '2009) State : TAMIL NADU
------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER OF ROAD ACCIDENTS ACCORDING TO CAUSES
------------------------------------------------------------------- Types of Fatal Grievous Minor Injury Non-Injury Total N.A Accidents causes Injury Fault of Driver 11494 12438 4091 6216 35636 57593 3731 54952 Fault of 261 287 73 94 857 1202 64 1255 Passengers other than Driver Fault of 464 479 150 187 1695 2561 20 2329 Pedestrian Mechanical 103 108 38 56 446 697 34 621 Defect Bad Road 117 121 46 86 404 647 47 614 Bad Weather 9 13 6 6 65 109 8 88 Others 279 300 44 76 573 974 39 935 Total 12727 13746 4448 6721 39676 63783 3943 60794 N A-NO. OF ACCIDENTS.
N P K - NO. OF PERSONS KILLED.
N P I - NO. OF PERSONS INJURED Source: DGP, Chennai"
The above data indicate gradual increase of fatal and grievous injury accidents. The percentage of accidents caused by the drivers' negligence is 90.31%. Thus, strict implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is the present day requirement not only at the time of issuing driving licence, but also even after the licence is issued."
9. From a reading of the above said data itself is very clear that the day in and the day out the accidents occurred in such huge numbers and loss of life is enormous. It is not the loss of death of one particular person, it is the loss of life of the entire family if a breadwinner dies in the accident. Such accident took place mostly due to the careless and reckless driving of the driver and therefore, nothing wrong in the authorities immediately taking action against such erring drivers under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act suspending the driving licence for a period of six months subject to the satisfaction of the authority after getting necessary explanation. In fact, we are pained to see such action has not been taken even in many cases. In fact, all over the world once the accidents take place, the licence of the driver is suspended especially in the case of a death of a person due to the accident. Though these rules are available, this has been seldom invoked in our country and it is a high time that same has to be followed in the strict sense. Of course, we would also very clearly make a note that such action should not be taken without affording sufficient reasonable opportunity to the persons concerned and the authority also should consider the explanation in the right spirit and only subject to their satisfaction the order of suspension is to be made. In fact, the law itself is very clear in all aspects that such order has to be passed only subject to the satisfaction of the authority concerned and it cannot be accepted that merely because criminal action or departmental enquiry are pending that will not block the authorities to suspend the licence. In fact, when the criminal case in initiated or conviction is given the subsequent procedure have also been contemplated in the Act under Section 21 and 22.
10. The second ground of attack was that the writ petition was also dismissed on the ground that there is an alternative remedy under Section 19 (4) of the Act and the appellant without approaching the appellate authority, has straightaway come forward with the writ petition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge that the order under challenge is admittedly an appealable order. If the appellant's contention is that his explanation has not been properly considered by the respondent that can be raised only in the appeal and not in the writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, as we cannot go into the question of consideration of the explanation under Article 226 of the constitution as it could be looked into by an appellate authority. Though the learned Single Judge has granted time of eight weeks for filing appeal from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the appellant has come forward with this writ appeal without filing the appeal. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, further eight weeks time is granted from today for preferring the appeal before the appropriate authority and when such an appeal is filed the appellate authority will consider the same on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
(srm)