JIBIN M.V. s/o Valsalan v. The Additional Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY,THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 7TH BHADRA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 25137 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **JIBIN M.V. S/O.VALSALAN, AGED 29, MANGATTIL HOSUE, KANDAMKULAM P.O., METHALA, KODUNGALLUR, PIN-680669.** ## **BY ADV. SRI. MANSOOR ALI** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE ADDITIONAL LICENSING AUTHORITY MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT STATE OF KERALA, PARASHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695502.** **R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioner, who is the holder of a driving license bearing No.47/2328/2007 issued by the Sub Regional Transport Officer, Parashala, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the** **WP(C).No. 25137 of 2018** **2** **Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 07.07.2018 of the Additional Licensing Authority, Parashala, the respondent herein, whereby he is disqualified from holding driving license for a period of six months under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the period from 04.07.2018 to 03.01.2019.** **2. On 26.07.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.** **3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.** **4. The sole issue that arises for consideration** **in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P4 order dated 07.07.2018 issued by the respondent.** **5. The pleadings and materials on record would** **show that on 09.06.2018, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-42/K-1166, which is a Heavy Goods Vehicle with National Permit, driven by the** **WP(C).No. 25137 of 2018** **3** **petitioner was involved in an accident, resulting death of one Ravi. In connection with the said motor accident, Ext.P3 FIR No.0724/18 of Vellarada Police Station was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Neyyattinkara. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice dated 25.06.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent to show cause why he shall not be disqualified from holding driving license, invoking Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner culminated in Ext.P4 order dated 07.07.2018 of the respondent, whereby he was disqualified from holding his driving license for a period of six months with effect from 06.07.2018 to 03.01.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.** **6. Ext.P4 order, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition, issued by the respondent in exercise of his powers under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in a printed/cyclostyled proforma with some insertions** **WP(C).No. 25137 of 2018** **4** **here and there and by filling the blanks, whereby the petitioner is disqualified from holding the driving license for a period of six months.** **7. In the judgment dated 05.12.2017 in W.P. (C).No.38188 of 2017 reported in** _**Santu Thomas v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Vaikom [2018 (1) KHC 437]**_ **, this Court held that though an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act is provided under an order of the licensing authority under Section 19(1), an order issued by the licensing authority on a printed/cyclostyled proforma with some insertions here and there by filling the blanks 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. Paragraphs 8 to 12 of the said judgment read thus;** _**“8. The provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act makes it explicitly clear that, for disqualifying a person for a**_ **WP(C).No. 25137 of 2018** **5** _**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 prerequisite. 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.**_ **WP(C).No. 25137 of 2018** **6** _**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**_ **WP(C).No. 25137 of 2018** **7** _**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 subsection (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**_ **WP(C).No. 25137 of 2018** **8** _**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 subsection (1) of Section 19 of the Act on a printed/cyclostyled performa with some insertions here or there and by filling the blanks.”**_ **8. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P4 order and directing the respondent to pass a reasoned order in conformity with the mandate of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to supra, and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, 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** **WP(C).No. 25137 of 2018** **9** **raised by the petitioner and that, Ext.P4 order of** **the respondent has been set aside only for the** **reasons stated hereinbefore.** ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **Judge** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2018**| |---|---| ||**(1) KLT 377**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED**| ||**25.06.2018**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 724/2018 DATED**| ||**09/06/2018 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL**| ||**POLICE STATION**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 07.07.2018**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NUMBER 21/2008**| ||**DATED 02/08/2008**| ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL** **AV/31/8**