Shanmughan Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 9TH MAGHA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 803 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **SHANMUGHAN PILLAI, AGED 52, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, ETERNAL HOUSE, VALANCHUZHY, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.** **BY ADV.SRI.SAJU J PANICKER** **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **3. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **4. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, RTO, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 641** **5. ADDITIONAL LICENSING AUTHORITY, (RTO), KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN-690 518** **R1 & R5 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH R2 TO R4 BY SRI.T.P SAJAN, SC,** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **WP(C).No. 803 of 2018 (A)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR 3294 OF 2017 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L3/4014/QK/2017 DATED 06.11.2017 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.2 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR/9/004671/2016 DATED 04.5.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 07.11.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C) No.803 of 2018 -----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 29[th] day of January, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is a Driver (Grade II) at the Pathanamthitta depot of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 6.11.2017 of the 5[th] respondent and Ext.P5 order dated 12.12.2017 of the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to allow him to continue as driver till the culmination proceedings in Crime No.3294/2017 of the Chavara Police Station pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kollam. The further relief sought for in this writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding the 4[th] respondent to consider Ext.P7 request dated 7.11.2017 and allot him any job other than the job of driver. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the W.P(C) No.803 of 2018 **:2:** learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1,3 to 5 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, representing the 2[nd] respondent. 3. While the petitioner was working as Driver (Grade II) in the Pathanamthitta depot of the KSRTC, a bus bearing registration No.KL-15/8013 driven by the petitioner met with a road accident on 29.10.2017. In the said accident one Thambu Reddyar sustained injuries, who succumbed to the injuries at the District Hospital, Kollam. In connection with the said accident, a crime has been registered as Crime No.3294/2017 of Chavara Police Station, which is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kollam. 4. After the motor accident, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by issuing a show cause notice by the 5[th] respondent, Additional Licensing Authority. The petitioner offered his explanation. After considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the 5[th] respondent, Additional Licensing Authority passed Ext.P3 order, whereby the petitioner was disqualified from holding driving license for a period of one year from W.P(C) No.803 of 2018 **:3:** 6.11.2017 to 5.11.2018, under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Ext.P3 order passed by the 5[th] respondent was under challenge in Ext.P4 appeal filed before the 3[rd] respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner. The said appeal was disposed of by Ext.P5 order dated 12.12.2017 of the 3[rd] respondent, whereby the period of suspension was reduced to six months from 6.11.2017 to 5.5.2018. 6. Feeling aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P5 orders of the 5[th] and 3[rd] respondents, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. The petitioner has a further grievance that despite Ext.P6 order dated 4.5.2017 issued by the 2[nd] respondent, the Chairman and Managing Director of the KSRTC, the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P7 representation dated 7.11.2017 to allot him any job other than the job of driver, is still pending consideration. 7. Ext.P5 order of the 3[rd] respondent is one issued under Section 19(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 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 W.P(C) No.803 of 2018 **:4:** licence. As per sub-section (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 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 W.P(C) No.803 of 2018 **:5:** 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. 8. 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 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. W.P(C) No.803 of 2018 **:6:** 9. 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 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. 10. By Ext.P5 order passed by the 3[rd] respondent Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed in part thereby reducing the period of suspension to six months from 6.4.2017 to 5.5.2018. The reasoning of the 3[rd] respondent in the last paragraph of Ext.P5 order reads thus: “çÈVAÞÝíºÏßW ¨ ¥çÄÞùßxßAí çÌÞÇcæM¿áµÏáIÞÏ W.P(C) No.803 of 2018 **:7:** µÞøcB{á¢, ¨ ¥Éµ¿¢ È¿K ØÞÙºøcÕᢠÉøß·Ãߺîí ¿ßÏÞæa 03/1598/1994 ÈOV èÜØXØí ÄÞÄíµÞÜßµÎÞÏß ùgá æºÏñ È¿É¿ß 06/11/2017 ÎáÄW 05/05/2018 Õæø ¦ùá ÎÞØÎÞÏß Èß¼æM¿áJß §ÄßÈÞW ©JøÕÞµáKá.” 11. 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 W.P(C) No.803 of 2018 **:8:** 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. 12. 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 W.P(C) No.803 of 2018 **:9:** 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. 13. A reading of Ext.P5 order of the Appellate Authority would show that it is one passed in a mechanical exercise of power, which is of no assistance while analysing the reasoning essential to such decision. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 order of the 3[rd] respondent Appellate Authority is set aside and the said respondent is directed to re-consider the matter and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 14. The further grievance of the petitioner is regarding the delay in considering Ext.P7 representation. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC would submit that the 4[th] respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P7 representation made by the petitioner within a time limit to be W.P(C) No.803 of 2018 **:10:** fixed by this Court. In such circumstances without expressing anything on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P7, the 4[th] respondent is directed to consider the said request and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him 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. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **JUDGE** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN,** //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab