PEETHAMBARAN Vs. ADDITIONAL LICENSING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a driver by profession, has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext. P1 order of the 1st respondent by which, the petitioner has been disqualified from holding the driving licence issued to him, for a period of one year, from 20/03/2012 to 19/03/2013. The petitioner while driving a bus was involved in a motor accident. The bus collided with a goods autorickshaw on 16/02/2012 and the driver of the autorickshaw was killed. The bus also rammed into a nearby house destroying the walls thereof. Crime No. 174 of 2012 has been registered by the North Paravur Police in respect of the incident, charge - sheeting the petitioner for offences under S.279, S.337 and S.304A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In view of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the 1st respondent also initiated action and by Ext. P1 the petitioner has been disqualified from holding a driving licence as stated above. The order Ext. P1 states that a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner as per the reference third cited therein and that, his explanation had been considered but, was found to be not satisfactory.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext. P1 order is dated 16/03/2012, while reference No. 3 shows that the petitioner had been personally heard on 20/03/2012. The above glaring discrepancy, according to the petitioner, renders the hearing if any afforded to him, illusory. At any rate, according to the petitioner, it shows that the petitioner was not heard before the order Ext. P1 was passed. Reliance is also placed on S.19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) to contend that according to the mandate of the said provision, the petitioner should have been heard before Ext. P1 was passed. It is a mandatory requirement that has not been complied with, it is pointed out. It is further contended that the petitioner is not a habitual criminal or a habitual offender and only in the case of such habitual offenders, S.19 is attracted. Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext. P1.