IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24564 of 2009(Q) ---------------------------------------- (C.C.NO.1053/08 OF JFCM II, KOCHI) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RINSON M.G., S/O.GEORGE M.O., HOUSE NO.14/687, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, COCHIN. BY ADV. MR.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, MATTANCHERY. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. SIVAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C)No.24564 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 8th day of October,2009 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, Regional Transport Officer to release the license of the petitioner and to declare that no purpose will be served in retaining the licence. The case of the petitioner is that on 30.8.2008, while he was riding the motor cycle second respondent the Sub Inspector of Police City Traffic Police Station stopped the vehicle and seized the licence and it was not returned and at that time he was served with Ext.P1 temporary acknowledgement as provided under section 206(3) of Motor Vehicles Act, but the licence was not produced before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kochi and in the final report filed before the Magistrate it was stated that the licence was seized and produced before the Magistrate and when petitioner filed an application under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the license it was submitted by the Assistant W.P.(C)24564/2009 2 Public Prosecutor that the license was not produced in court and it was forwarded to the Regional Transport Officer for endorsing the fact of suspension of the licence for a certain period. According to the petitioner, as he did not get any other information, he filed a petition under the Right to Information Act to get the particulars and inspite of the service of Ext.P3 petition, under Ext.P4 postal receipt and acknowledgement, no reply was sent and petitioner was compelled to send Ext.P5 representation for releasing the driving licence and still it is not released and therefore a writ of mandamus is to be issued. 2. As directed first respondent filed a statement. It discloses that petitioner was driving the motor cycle , which caused the accident and the resultant death of a person and during the course of investigation the driving licence was impounded and forwarded to the Regional Transport Officer, Mattancherry. The licence thus forwarded to the office of the first respondent was served on 19.11.2008 to take further steps. On 31.12.2008 show cause notice was sent to the licensee, in the address shown in the driving licence. It was returned back undelivered on 17.2.2009 with the remarks 'addressee not known'and in such circumstance further proceedings could not be taken. W.P.(C)24564/2009 3 It was contended that under the Rules orders is to be passed after hearing the licensee and considering the gravity of the offence and the driving licence could be suspended for a period of two years and in such circumstance, petitioner is to be directed to appear before the Regional Transport Officer to show cause why the licence shall not be suspended. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader were heard. 4. Learned counsel argued that eventhough the driving licence was seized and Ext.P1 the temporary acknowledgement of the driving licence given to the petitioner, in the final report submitted before the court it is stated that the licence was produced before the court. But it was in fact not produced and therefore under Ext.P2, petition filed under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Inspite of Ext.P3 petition the details called for was not furnished by the first respondent and the licence was detained by the first respondent for the last one year and in such circumstance a direction is to be issued to release the licence. Learned counsel submitted that if necessary petitioner is prepared to appear before the Regional Transport Officer and to show cause, but the licence be released. W.P.(C)24564/2009 4 5. Learned Government pleader submitted that Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the licensing authority to disqualify a person from holding a licence or even to revoke the licence for the reason stated under clause (a) to (h) thereon and when the vehicle was involved in an accident causing the death of a person and the driving licence was seized by the Investigating Officer for taking action under section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act and forwarded to the first respondent, first respondent exercising the power under sub section (1) of Section 19 issued a show cause notice as an order provided under clause (i) or (ii) of Section 19 (1) could be passed only after issuing a show cause notice and hearing the licensee and the notice could not be served as the notice send to the addressee was returned unserved and in such circumstance, petitioner is not entitled to get the licence released to him and he has to appear before the first respondent and in writing, show cause why he shall not be disqualified or the licence shall not be revoked. 6. Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 enables the licensing authority, if satisfied to disqualify a person for a specific period from holding a driving licence or even to revoke such licence after giving the holder of a licence opportunity of being heard, if any of the clauses W.P.(C)24564/2009 5 (a) to (h) applies to the case. When the vehicle was involved in an accident causing the death of an innocent person, Investigating Officer was justified in forwarding the license after seizure to the first respondent to take appropriate action as provided under section 19. When the first respondent had issued a show cause notice in the address shown in the driving licence, first respondent cannot be find fault for not proceeding as provided under the Act. In such circumstance, it is for the petitioner to appear before the first respondent and in writing, show the cause why he shall not be disqualified or the licence shall not be revoked as provided under section 19. The Writ Petition is disposed directing the petitioner to appear before the first respondent and submit a written reply showing cause, on 13.10.2009. First respondent is directed to pass appropriate order immediately without any delay. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006