Joseph Shaji v. The Additional Licensing Authority, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 615 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **JOSEPH SHAJI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. FRANCIS, NELLIPUZHA HOUSE, PUZHITHODU FERRY ROAD, SOUTH FERRY, ERNAKULAM** **BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE ADDITIONAL LICENSING AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM-682 030** **SRI K.P. HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 WP(C)615 OF 2019 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the holder of Ext.P1 driving license No.7/8012/1996 authorising to drive Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles (HPMV), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 26.12.2018 of the respondent. 2. On 09.01.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. 3. On 17.01.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; ## “In **Santu Thomas v. The Joint Regional Transport** **Officer [2018 (1) KLT 377]** (wrongly quoted as [2019 (1) KLT 377 in the synopsis and paragraph 11 of the statement of facts), this Court held that an order issued under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, suspending or revoking driving licence, issued in a printed/cyclostyled per-forma with some insertions here or there or 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 3 WP(C)615 OF 2019 essential to such a decision. 2. In the instant case, a perusal of Ext.P4 order dated 26.12.2018 issued by the respondent Additional Licensing Authority would show that the said order is one issued in total violation of the law laid down by this Court in the decision referred to supra. 3. The learned Government Pleader shall ensure that the counter affidavit of the respondent is placed on record by 22.01.2019.” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 5. **In Santu Thomas v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Vaikom [2018 (1) KHC 437],** this Court held that satisfaction of the licensing authority, after giving the holder of such licence an opportunity of being heard, of the existence of any of the circumstances made mention in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a pre-requisite to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence or to revoke such licence under sub-section (1). Further, the licensing authority has to record reasons in writing for disqualifying a person for a specified period for holding or 4 WP(C)615 OF 2019 obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence, or for revoking any such licence. This Court held further that though an appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act is provided under an order of the licensing authority under subsection (1) of Section 19, 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 6 to 12 of the said judgment read thus; _“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 subsection (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_ 5 WP(C)615 OF 2019 _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. 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_ 6 WP(C)615 OF 2019 _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 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_ 7 WP(C)615 OF 2019 _by total non-application of mind. The mandatory prerequisites 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_ 8 WP(C)615 OF 2019 _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 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 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 9 WP(C)615 OF 2019 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.” 6. In the instant case, Ext.P4 order passed by the respondent, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby the driving license of the petitioner stands suspended from 26.12.2018 to 25.12.2019 is one passed without noticing the law laid down in the judgment of this Court in **Santu Thomas's case (supra)** . In such circumstances, Ext.P4 order dated 26.12.2018 will stand set aside on the aforesaid ground and the respondent is directed to pass a fresh order, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, taking note of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **yd** 10 WP(C)615 OF 2019 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.1585 OF 2018 OF MULAVAKADU POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 26.12.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2018** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE**