Rule 21 Central MV Rules| Suspending Driving License Without Indicating That Act Of License Holder Comes Within Stipulation Is Invalid: Madras HC

While considering a petition seeking to quash suspension of the driving license of the petitioner for a period of 5 months and 29 days, the Madras High Court held that the licensing Authority cannot come to any opinion that the petitioner's driving was rash and negligent when the investigation is still pending consideration.

Finding that no charge sheet has been filed against the Petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of Justice S. Sounthar observed that “in the absence of any indication in the order how the act of the petitioner comes within any of the 25 acts mentioned under Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the order passed by the second respondent suspending license of the petitioner is bad in law”.

Advocate K. Hariharan appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate C. E. Pratap appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner is working as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Coimbatore. When the petitioner was driving a bus belonging to the said corporation, an accident occurred wherein the rider of the motor cycle died. Accordingly, an FIR was filed under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. The first respondent (Police) seized the driving license of the petitioner and Licensing Authority (second respondent) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to explain as to why the driving license should not be cancelled under Section 19 (1) (d) & (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Later, the second respondent passed an order invoking Section 19 (1) (d) & (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that under Section 19 (1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if the licensing Authority is satisfied by the previous conduct of the licensee holder that his driving is likely to cause danger to the public, it can pass orders disqualifying him from holding license.

However, in the case on hand, the Bench found that the second respondent has not recorded a finding that he is satisfied by the previous conduct of the petitioner that his driving is likely to cause danger to the public.

Therefore, the Bench stated that the ingredients of under Section 19 (1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not satisfied.

“Under section 19 (1) (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if the licensee has committed any act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, it can disqualify him from holding license”, added the Bench.

The Bench further found that it is not stated by the second respondent that how the act of the petitioner comes within any one of the 25 acts mentioned under Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and as far as fatal accident case is concerned, the FIR is filed against him and the matter is pending investigation.

Accordingly, the Bench quashed the order passed by the licensing authority.

Cause Title: G. Karuppusamy v. The Inspector of Police and Anr.

Click here to read/download the Order