IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17479 of 2010(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MUTHUKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. PARAMASIVAM, MANJUMALLAY ESTATE, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IDUKKI. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 17479 OF 2010 H ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner was the holder of a driving licence authorising him to drive heavy vehicles. On 22/1/2009 the stage carriage driven by the petitioner met with an accident causing the death of a commuter. As per Ext.P1 order dated 20/11/2009 the respondent initiated action against the petitioner and disqualified him from holding his licence for a period of one year from the date of the order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 by filing an appeal against the same. As per Ext.P2, the appellate authority modified Ext.P1 and confined the disqualification to the driving of public service vehicles (including stage carriages) for a period one year from 20/11/2009. 2. According to the petitioner, on 20/5/2010, six months have elapsed since the disqualification was passed by the authority. Section 23(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 confers power on the respondent to reconsider the question of continuance of the order of disqualification and to pass appropriate orders either cancelling or varying the same. The petitioner has already submitted Ext.P3 request for the above purpose. He complains that the respondent WPC 17479/2010 2 has not considered his application so far. Therefore, he seeks appropriate directions for the consideration of the same. 3. It is no doubt true that Section 23(3) confers power on the respondent to cancel or vary the disqualification order after taking into account and considering all the circumstances. Since the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P3 application for the above purpose, it is certainly necessary that the same is considered by the respondent and appropriate orders passed, in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no harm in issuing such a direction. However, I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the statements made by the petitioner in Ext.P3. Therefore, the respondent would have to objectively consider whether the petitioner has pointed out any circumstances justifying the cancellation of the disqualification that has been imposed on the petitioner and confirmed in appeal. 4. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P3 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 17479/2010 3 WPC 17479/2010 4