P. Cherian Tharakan v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kottarakkara

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 15361 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER(S)** **P.CHERIAN THARAKAN, POLACHIRACKAL HOUSE, THENGELI.P.O, KUTOOR , THIRUVALLA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.DEEPAK** **SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.G.RENJITHA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **16.06.2018** **WP(C).No. 15361 of 2018 (U)** ## **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 24.04.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.04.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2018. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NUMBER 21/2008 DATED 02/08/2008.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msd. 16.06.2018** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.** **-----------------------------------------------** W.P.(C)No.15361 of 2018 **-----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 6[th] day of June, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is the holder of a driving licence bearing No.16/4891/02, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 proceedings of the respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer dated 28.4.2018. By Ext.P4 proceedings, invoking the powers under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the respondent has suspended the driving licence of the petitioner for a period of six months from 28.04.2018 to 27.10.2018, on the ground that the petitioner has dangerously and carelessly driven his vehicle which resulted in death of a person. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader in the matter. 3. On 25.4.2018, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice requiring him to show cause why proceedings shall not be initiated against him under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, W.P.(C)No.15361 of 2018 :-2-: for disqualifying him from holding the driving licence, since Crime No.574/2018 of Puthoor Police Station has been registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with motor accident occurred on 5.4.2018, resulting death of a pedestrian. On receipt of Ext.P2 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply dated 28.04.2018. On the very same date, the respondent issued a stereotyped order, i.e., Ext.P4 order, disqualifying the petitioner from holding driving licence for a period of 6 months. The only reason in Ext.P4 order is that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not fully satisfactory. ## 4. In **Santu Thomas v. The Joint Regional Transport Officer (2018 (1) KLT 377)** , this Court has held as follows; “7. As per sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order made by a licensing authority under subsection (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. 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 W.P.(C)No.15361 of 2018 :-3-: 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 pre requisite. 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 nonapplication 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. 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, W.P.(C)No.15361 of 2018 :-4-: 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 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 sub-section (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- W.P.(C)No.15361 of 2018 :-5-: section (3) of Section 19 of the Act 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. 13. In such circumstances, Ext.P3 proceedings of the respondent licensing authority is set aside and the said respondent is directed to pass a reasoned order in conformity with the mandate of subsection (1) of Section 19 of the Act, read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, taking note of the orders and circulars governing the field, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, 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.” (underline supplied) In such circumstances, Ext.P4 proceedings of the respondent licensing authority is set aside and the said respondent is directed to re-consider the matter and pass a reasoned order in conformity with the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, taking note of the orders and circulars governing the field, and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, 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 raised by the petitioner in Ext.P3 W.P.(C)No.15361 of 2018 :-6-: reply and Ext.P4 proceedings of the licensing authority has been set aside only for the reasons stated hereinbefore. Sd/- **JUDGE** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ami/7.6.18 //True copy// P.A.to Judge