*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA +WRIT PETITION NO.6419 OF 2008 %Dated 29.07.2008 # K. Vidyanand, S/o K. Pochaiah, MCH Dept., R/o H.No.18-13-7/95, New Indira Nagar, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER VERSUS $ 1 The Addl. Licensing Authority, Hyderabad Central Zone, Office of the Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for Petitioner: Sri G. Arun Kumar ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP for Transport Counsel for Respondent No.3: --- < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6419 of 2008 Between: K.Vidyanand, s/o.K.Pochaiah, MCH Dept, R/o.H.No.18-13-7/95 New Indira Nagar, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Addl.Licensing Authority Hyderabad Central Zone, Office of the Jt.Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,Hyderabad. 2 The Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,Hyderabad. 3 Sri K.Dayanand, S/o.K.Janakiram, R/o.H.No.5-4-75/10,Muralidharbagh, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenature of writ of mandamus declaring theaction of the responents 1 and 2 in suspending the licence vide driving licence No.7184/hs/2000 of the petitoner in Memo No.15272/B1/2007 dated 18.12.2007 under Section 21 of M.V. Act is illegal, arbitrary in nature and contrary to the M.V.Act and rules and also in violation of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 6419 of 2008 Order: Questioning the impugned memo dated 18.12.2007, issued by the 1st respondent- Additional Licensing Authority, suspending the driving licence of the petitioner, for a period of six months, in exercise of power under Section 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), on the ground that the petitioner was involved in an accident, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the request of the learned Government Pleader for Transport, the matter adjourned on several occasions for filing counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit is filed. However, when the matter is taken up today, the learned Government Pleader for Transport produced a copy of memo dated 06.06.2008, issued by the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, on the basis of the order dated 28.02.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3730 of 2008, wherein it was held that the licencing authority under Section 19(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is competent to disqualify a person for holding a driving licence for a specified period or even to revoke the licence after issuing show cause notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the holders of driving licence, and accordingly requested all the licensing authorities to issue show cause notice and give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the holders of driving licence before taking action against their driving licence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is involved in the accident for the first time, and based on the complaint made by the 3rd respondent, the police have registered a case against the petitioner under Section 304(A) IPC, thereafter, the petitioner was enlarged on bail, and the said criminal proceedings against the petitioner are still pending consideration and no final orders thereon are passed. He further submitted that the 1st respondent-Additional Licensing Authority, passed the impugned order, under Section 21 of the Act, without issuing any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and as such, suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that since the petitioner has not been convicted earlier, and he being involved in the accident for the first time, the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, have no application. He, thus, prayed that the impugned memo dated 18.12.2007, passed by the 1st respondent-Additional Licensing Authority be quashed and set aside. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport, the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Act, is empowered to suspend the driving licence of the individuals who are involved in accidents? To appreciate this question, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 21 and 22 of the Act, which deal with the suspension and cancellation of driving licence in certain cases and on conviction. Section 21 of the Act, which deals with suspension of driving licence in certain cases, reads thus: 21. Suspension of driving licence in certain cases: “(1) Where, in relation to a person who had been previously convicted of an offence punishable under Section 184, a case is registered by a police officer on the allegation that such person has, by such dangerous driving as is referred to in the said Section 184, of any class or description of motor vehicle caused the death of, or grievous hurt to, one or more persons, the driving licence held by such person shall in relation to such class or description of motor vehicle become suspended – (a) for a period of six months from the date on which the case is registered; or (b) if such person is discharged or acquitted before the expiry of the period aforesaid, until such discharge or acquittal, as the case may be.” While Section 22 of the Act, which deals with suspension or cancellation of driving licence on conviction, reads thus: 22. Suspension or cancellation of driving licence on conviction: “(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Sec.20, where a person, referred to in sub-section (1) of Sec.21, is convicted of an offence of causing, by such dangerous driving as is referred to in Sec.184 of any class or description of motor vehicle the death of, or grievous hurt to, one or more persons, the Court by which such person is convicted may cancel, or suspend for such period as it may think fit, the driving licence held by such person in so far as it relates to that class or description of motor vehicle.” A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act, under which provision of law, the present impugned memo came to be issued by the 1st respondent, would disclose that the driving license of a person can be suspended only in case where the person was convicted previously for the offence punishable under Section 184 of the Act, and a case is registered by a police officer on the allegation that such person has, by such dangerous driving as is referred to in the said Section 184, of any class or description of motor vehicle caused the death of, or grievous hurt to, one or more persons, the driving licence held by such person shall in relation to such class or description of motor vehicle become suspended for a period of six months from the date of registration of the second case. While under Section 22 of the Act, the Court is empowered to suspend or cancel the driving licence of a convicted person, for the offence under Section 184 of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was not convicted previously. He is involved in the accident for the first time, and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect thereto, are still pending consideration before the Criminal Court. In fact, under Section 21 of the Act, the licence of an individual can be suspended or cancelled only if he was convicted previously in an offence under Section 184 of the Act, for causing death or grievous injuries to the person involved in the accident. The petitioner has not been convicted previously for the offence under Section 184 of the Act, and as such, the 1st respondent in exercise of the power under Section 21 of the Act, could not have passed the impugned order, suspending the licence of the petitioner, and more so without issuing any notice. Since the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, which suspended the licence of the petitioner, deprived the petitioner of his livelihood, principles of natural justice justified, issuance of notice, and since no notice whatsoever was issued by the 1st respondent before passing the impugned order, despite the memo issued by the Transport Commissioner directing issuance of notice and providing of opportunity to the persons before his or her licence is suspended or cancelled, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent not only suffers from violation of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, but also suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice, and as such, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the impugned order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the 1st respondent, placing the licence of the petitioner under suspension, is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 29.07.2008 Ksr/Nsr