AMAR SINGH Vs. SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 10.10.2001 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 30.1.2002 (Annexure P-6) are the subject-matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The driving licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by order dated 10.10.2001 by the Licensing Authority (Motor)-cum-District Transport officer, Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 3. The State Transport Commissioner, respondent No. 2, has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.1.2002, upholding the order of the District Transport Officer. As a consequence of the aforementioned action of respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively, the services of the petitioner, who was appointed as Bus Driver by the Divisional Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking & Director Transport, Union Territory, Chandigarh, vide order dated 24.8.2001 (Annexure P-4), has been discontinued as driver, vide order dated 29.10.2001 (Annexure P-7).

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that he passed Matriculation in the year 1990 and started doing ITI in Mechanical Trade. He had obtained diploma in the year 1993 (Annexure P-2). He is stated to have applied for driving licence during the year 1994-95 to respondent No. 3, which was issued to him after completion of all the required formalities. It is claimed that the petitioner had applied for licence after completing ITI in Mechanical Trade as the driving licence was required for the purposes of further employment. The licence issued by respondent No. 3 was lost and the matter was reported to Talwara Police Station. On the basis of DDR entry, the petitioner was issued driving licence No. 672 in the year 1994-95, which has further been renewed firstly from 17.4.1997 to 16.4.2000 and further renewed from 11.4.2000 upto 10.4.2003 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner was appointed as a Bus Driver in the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, U.T. Chandigarh, vide his appointment letter dated 24.8.2001 (Annexure P-4).

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the stand taken is that the petitioner had applied for renewal of his driving licence, which was issued by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), vide No. 2672/RDL-91-92 for LTV, MTV and HTV. The aforementioned licence was valid up to 18.4.1994. It is claimed that the petitioner never applied for a fresh driving licence to respondent No. 3 and the licence had already been issued by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), was renewed vide No. 1783 on 23.5.1994, which was valid up to 22.5.1997 after adopting due procedure and taking necessary fee vide receipt No. 8460/57 for Rs. 15/-, dated 2.5.1994. It has been admitted that a duplicate Driving Licence No. 672 was issued on 14.3.1995, which was to be valid up to 22.5.1997 and the same was further renewed vide endorsement No. 954, dated 17.4.1997. It remained valid up to 16.4.2000. It was still further renewed vide endorsement No. 509 dated 11.4.2000 up to 10.4.2003. It is further asserted that the petitioner has deliberately reported the matter to the police alleging the loss of his driving licence to conceal the fact pertaining to his date of birth. With regard to the complaint of Ashwani Kumar, respondent No. 3 has taken the stand that the complaint was thoroughly investigated and it was found that at the time of issuance of driving licence by the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 15.3.1970 as per the office record, whereas his actual date of birth according to his Matriculation Certificate (Annexure P-1) is 15.3.1974. It shows that in 1991 when the petitioner applied for issuance of fresh driving licence to the Licensing Authority, Ranga Reddy (Andhra Pradesh), he was 17 years and 3 days old. It is, thus, concluded that by virtue of his young age the petitioner was not found entitled to obtain learner's driving licence for LTV under Section 4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act'). It has further been claimed that during the enquiry it was proved beyond doubt that the petitioner had obtained the original driving licence from Ranga Reddy by misrepresentation and concealment of fact regarding his date of birth, which was mentioned as 15.3.1970, while his actual date of birth is 15.3.1974. The action of respondent No. 3 disqualifying the petitioner from holding the driving licence is claimed to be legal and just under Section 19(1)(e) of the Act.