Madras High Court
T.Thyagarajan vs The Home Secretary on 27 July, 2022
W.P.No.35155 of 2015
FwhIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.35155 of 2015
T.Thyagarajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Home Secretary,
Office of Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Chief Secretary, representing for
Union Territory of Puducherry,
Office of the Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
3.The Commissioner,
Office of the Transport Department,
Government of Puducherry,
100 feet road, Mudhaliarpet,
Puducherry.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in
No.11018/TD/L3/2015, dated 11.06.2015, passed by the 3rd respondent
herein and quash the same and directing the 3rd respondent to rectify as
“LMV-4W” instead of “LMV-3W”, in the driving licence No.200510495,
issued on 28.09.2005 and additional driving licence issued on 20.09.2007
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35155 of 2015
with the retrospective effect from 20.09.2007, with the procedure established
by law.
For Petitioner : M/s.E.Thiyaga
For Respondents :Mr.G.Venkatesan
(CGSC) for R1
M/s.A.Alexander
Government Advocate for R2 and R3
ORDER
The petitioner has come up with this writ petition, seeking a direction to 3rd respondent to correct the endorsement in his driving licence No.200510495 as “LMV-4W” instead of “LMV-3W”. According to writ petitioner, he applied for “LMV-4W” licence in the year 2007 and after regular test drive he was issued with the driving licence on 20.09.2007, but, however, instead of endorsement “LMV-4W”, the 3rd respondent issued a driving licence with a wrong endorsement “LMV-3W”. The writ petitioner stated that immediately on receipt of driving licence card, he failed to note the typographical error that had crept in.
2. The petitioner further claims that during the month of September 2013, he met with an accident and only thereafter he found the typographical Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35155 of 2015 error that had crept in in his driving licence. Immediately, he approached the 3rd respondent for correction of his driving licence and there was no response from him. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21956 of 2014, seeking a direction to 3rd respondent to pass orders on his representation dated 15.06.2014 for issuing correct driving licence. The above writ petition was allowed with direction to consider the request of the petitioner on merits.
3. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the impugned order was passed by the 3rd respondent refusing to rectify the endorsement found in the driving licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has come up before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for issue of “LMV-4W” driving licence, but, however, the 3rd respondent by mistake issued “LMV-3W” driving licence. She also submitted that due to error committed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is unable to get the insurance coverage for the accident. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to consider the prayer of the writ petitioner on the ground of equity.
Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35155 of 2015
5. The learned counsel for the respondents by relying on the counter filed by the respondents dated 31.12.2016 submitted that as per Rule 13 of Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Rules, an appeal has to be filed by the licence holder, if he requires any correction in the endorsement found in the driving licence within 30 days from the date of receipt of the licence card. In this case, the writ petitioner has not approached the 3rd respondent/Transport Commissioner, Pondicherry, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the licence card. He approached the 3rd respondent nearly after six years that too after he caused a road accident.
6. Even though the petitioner seeks correction of the endorsement found in the driving licence on the ground that he made an application for issue of four wheeler driving licence, the third respondent mistakenly issued driving licence for three wheeler, the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he really applied for issue of four wheeler driving licence. The petitioner has not produced the copy of the application filed by him before the competent authority seeking issue of “LMV-4W” driving licence. The driving licence issued by the competent authority is in exercise of its official acts and the general presumption to official act that they are Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35155 of 2015 performed regularly is available in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner who seeks rectification of driving licence on the ground that he applied for four wheeler driving licence but the third respondent mistakenly issued three wheeler driving licence has to convince the Court by producing some evidence to show that he really applied for four wheeler driving licence. The petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he earlier applied for four wheeler licence instead he was issued with three wheeler driving licence.
7. The perusal of the impugned order shows that any application for endorsement in the driving licence will be preserved by the Department only for one year and in present case, the application of the petitioner pertains to the period 20.09.2007 and the same is not available for the department for verification. Further, as per Rule 13 of Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Act 1989, it is incumbent on the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of licence and he approached the authority concerned within the time prescribed by Rule 13. Had the petitioner approached the authorities concerned within prescribed Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35155 of 2015 time, the application submitted by the petitioner would have been available for verifying the contention raised by the petitioner. Unfortunately, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent after six years delay and hence the 3rd respondent is not in a position to verify, whether the claim made by the petitioner is correct or not. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is justified in rejecting the claim made by the the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice to the Court that the petitioner is involved in two road accidents. He failed to approach the authorities for correction of the driving licence, immediately, after the first accident. He approached the authorities for correction only after the 2nd accident.
8. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.
27.07.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order ub Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35155 of 2015 To
1.The Home Secretary, Office of Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Chief Secretary, representing for Union Territory of Puducherry, Office of the Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
3.The Commissioner, Office of the Transport Department, Government of Puducherry, 100 feet road, Mudhaliarpet, Puducherry.
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35155 of 2015 S.SOUNTHAR. J, ub W.P.No.35155 of 2015 27.07.2022 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis