Sujeesh Mohan K.M. v. Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone-2, Ernakulam; The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (Licensing Authority), Collectorate, Kottayam; The Station House Officer, Ettumanoor Police Station; The District Transport Officer, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Alappuzha Depot

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 19TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER :** **SUJEESH MOHAN K.M., AGED 39 YEARS** **S/O.K.V.MOHANAN, DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA DEPOT (RESIDING AT KUTTICKAL HOUSE, KALAVOOR P.O., -688522).** **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE-2, ERNAKULAM.** - **2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, (LICENCING AUTHORITY), COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM – 682 030** **IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS** **THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, LICENCING AUTHORITY), COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM – 682 030** **AS PER ORDER DATED 08.02.2019 IN WPC** - **3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, ETTUMANOOR.** - **4 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA DEPOT.** **BY SMT C.S.SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a Driver in the Alappuzha Depot of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. On 26.04.2018, a bus bearing registration No.KL-15/8011 driven by the petitioner involved in a motor accident, in which a person who was riding a Scooter bearing registration No.KL-05/AM664 sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries at the place of accident itself. In connection with the said motor accident, Crime No.624/18 of Ettumanoor Police Station has been registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, in which Ext.P5 final report has been filed alleging negligence against the Scooterist. On account of registration of Crime No.624/2018 of Ettumanoor Police Station, proceedings under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to suspend/cancel the driving license of the petitioner was initiated by the 2[nd] respondent Licensing Authority, Kottayam, vide Ext.P2 show cause notice dated **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **3** 10.06.2018. Despite receipt of Ext.P2 show cause notice, the petitioner has not chosen to submit any reply. The Licensing Authority conducted a personal hearing and thereafter, issued Ext.P3 order dated 09.11.2018, whereby the driving license of the petitioner stands suspended for a period of one year from 01.12.2018 to 30.11.2019, thereby disqualifying him from driving all category of vehicles. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 appeal before the 1[st] respondent, who is the appellate authority. Ext.P6 was followed by Ext.P7 representation dated 04.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 09.11.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to revoke the order of suspension of his driving licence, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs. 2. On 10.01.2019, when this writ petition came up for **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **4** ## admission, this Court passed the following order; _“The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to quash Ext.P3 order dated 09.11.2018 issued by the 2[nd] respondent, in exercise of his powers under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the driving licence of the petitioner stands suspended for a period of one year._ _2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KL-15/8011, driven by the petitioner on 26.04.2018, has absolutely no connection with the motor accident occurred at Ettumanoor, at about 21.30 hours, involving a scooter bearing registration No.KL-5/AM-664, which resulted in the death of the Scooterist._ _3. In Ground A of the writ petition, it is averred that the petitioner's vehicle did not even touch the scooter and the scooterist fell himself behind the bus._ _4. The document marked as Ext.P5 is the final report in Crime No.624/2018 of Ettumanoor Police Station. As per Ext.P5 final report, at the place of accident, the scooter bearing registration No.KL-05/AM-664 hit on the front tire of KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KL-15/8011 driven by the petitioner, which has resulted in damage to the bus body._ _5. The learned Senior Government Pleader to get instructions from the 3[rd] respondent Station House Officer as to the damages, if any, caused to KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KL-15/8011 driven by the petitioner on_ **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **5** _26.04.2018. The learned Senior Government Pleader shall ensure that the files relating to Crime No.624/2018 of Ettumanoor Police Station is made available for the perusal of this Court on 21.01.2019.”_ 3. On 21.01.2019, the learned Senior Government Pleader has made available for the perusal of this Court the records relating to Crime No.624/2018 of Ettumanoor Police Station. ## 4. On 23.01.2019, this Court passed the following order; _“Perused the records relating to Crime No.624/2018 of Ettumanoor Police Station, which is registered in connection with a motor accident, which occurred on 26.04.2018, involving a KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KL-15/8011, driven by the petitioner and a scooter bearing registration No.KL-05/AM 664._ _2. In the accident, the scooterist succumbed to the injuries. Though in the ground 'A' of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15/8011 driven by him, did not even touch the scooter and the scooterist fell down himself behind the bus, now the records made available for the perusal of this Court would show that there is a scratch on the right side of the bus, at a length of 65 cms, which starts from the rear side of the front mudguard, at a height of 45 cm from the bottom (Mahazar of the bus). A perusal of the case diary_ **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **6** _(CD No.4/18) would show that most of the witnesses have not seen the accident and their statement as to the cause of the accident was based on hearsay evidence._ _3. The files in Crime No.624/2018 of Ettumanoor Police Station is returned to the learned Senior Government Pleader. The learned Senior Government Pleader shall ensure that statement/counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 is placed on record within a week.”_ 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC representing the 4[th] respondent. 6. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 09.11.2018 issued by the 2[nd] respondent in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of registration of Crime No.624/2018 of Ettumanoor Police Station, in connection with a motor accident involving a bus bearing registration No.KL-15/8011, driven by the petitioner. **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **7** 7. Though Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, he has not chosen to submit any reply. After conducting a personal hearing, the 2[nd] respondent passed Ext.P3 order, which is appelable before the 1[st] respondent, who is the appellate authority, in view of the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner has already moved Ext.P6 appeal before the 1[st] respondent appellate authority. When a statutory remedy is available under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act, against Ext.P3 order of suspension, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the said order. The petitioner has already invoked the statutory remedy by filing Ext.P6 appeal before the 1[st] respondent Appellate Authority, invoking sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. 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 **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **8** 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 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 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 **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **9** ## 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 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_ **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **10** _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 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_ **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **11** _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._ _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_ **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **12** _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 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**_ **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **13** ## _**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 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_ **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **14** ## _insertions here or there and by filling the blanks.”_ In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P3 order of suspension, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in _**Santu Thomas's case (supra)**_ . While taking a decision a directed above, the 1[st] respondent shall also obtain a report from the 2[nd] respondent Licensing Authority and also peruse the relevant records relating to Crime No.624/2018 of Ettumanoor Police Station. The 1[st] respondent shall pass a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN,JUDGE** AV/12/2 **WP(C).No. 788 of 2019** **15** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DUTY PASS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 10.6.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L1/8011/2018/K. DATED 09.11.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1094/PVR/ETMR/2018 DATED 12.12.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.624/2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 4.1.2019.**