DINESH. S. NAIR vs LICENSING AUTHORITY & ORS.

The petitioner, who is the holder of driving license bearing No.38/390/1998, is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 05.12.2017 of the 1st respondent, Licensing Authority and

seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to conduct an independent enquiry as contemplated under Section 19(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act and pass appropriate orders, after giving him an opportunity of being heard, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

Ext.P7 order, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition, is passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of his powers under Section

19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said order is in a printed/cyclostyled proforma with some insertions here and there and by filling the

blanks, whereby the petitioner is disqualified from holding the driving license for a period of six months.

In the judgment dated 05.12.2017 in W.P.(C).No.38188 of 2017, this Court held that though an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Motor

Vehicles Act is provided under an order of the licensing authority under Section 19(1), an order issued by the licensing authority on a

printed/cyclostyled proforma with some insertions here and there by filling the blanks makes the appellate jurisdiction nugatory and ineffective

inasmuch as, such an order passed in a mechanical exercise of power will be of little assistance to the appellate authority while analysing the

reasoning essential to such a decision. Paragraphs 8 to 12 of the said judgment read thus;

The provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act makes it explicitly clear that, for disqualifying a person for a specified period for

holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence, or for revoking any such

licence, the satisfaction of the licensing authority, after giving the holder of such licencee an opportunity of being heard, of the existence of any of

the circumstances made mention in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) is a pre-requisite. Further, the licensing authority has to record the reasons

in writing for disqualifying a person for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of

vehicles specified in the licence, or for revoking any such licence.

In the instant case, Ext.P3 proceedings of the respondent dated 27.10.2017 is on a printed/cyclostyled proforma with some insertions here or

there and by filling the blanks, whereby the petitioner is disqualified under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act from holding driving licence

bearing No.40/2480/2005 for a period of one year, from 27.10.2017 to 26.10.2018. Ext.P3 proceedings, shows a mechanical exercise of power

by the licensing authority and as such, the same is vitiated by total non-application of mind. The mandatory prerequisites for an order under sub-

section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, consistent with the principles of natural justice, are missing in Ext.P3.

In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union, [(1974) 3 SCC 318 ] the Apex Court, while considering the challenge made

against an award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held that the giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial

and quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious

unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of

unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and

legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well known principle that justice should not

only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them.

Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies

from the decisions of judicial and quasi judicial authorities to the Apex Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does

not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether

the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the

reasons in support of their conclusions.

In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers, [(2010) 4 SCC 785 ] the Apex Court held that, the

principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be

given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason

for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could, in the given facts and circumstances of the

case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the Court should meet

with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction.

Though an appeal is provided under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act before the appellate authority, Ext.P3 proceedings of the

licensing authority, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition, virtually makes the appellate jurisdiction nugatory and ineffective, inasmuch as,

such an order passed in a mechanical exercise of power will be of little assistance to the appellate authority while analysing the reasoning essential

to such a decision. Therefore, no purpose will be served by relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under sub-section (3) of

Section 19 of the Act against an order issued by the licensing authority under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act on a printed/cyclostyled

performa with some insertions here or there and by filling the blanks.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P7 order of the 1st respondent and directing the said respondent to pass

a reasoned order in conformity with the mandate of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles

Rules, taking note of the orders and circulars governing the field and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously

as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner and that, Ext.P7 order of the

1st respondent has been set aside only for the reasons stated hereinbefore. The petitioner shall personally present before the 1st respondent

Licensing Authority on 25.01.2018 at 11.00 a.m for personal hearing.