K.Nagasundaram vs The Regional Transport Officer
Decided on: 14 July, 2023
CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
Introduction
In a recent legal case, K. Nagasundaram challenged an order by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) and Licensing Authority that suspended his driving license. The suspension arose from a road traffic accident that occurred on May 3, 2023, involving a bus driven by Nagasundaram. The accident resulted in a fatality and led to a criminal case being registered against him. Nagasundaram filed a writ petition, seeking the quashing of the suspension order, claiming that it was premature and lacked proper legal grounds.
Case Background
- Nagasundaram, the petitioner, was involved in a road traffic accident that led to the unfortunate death of a person on May 3, 2023. Following the incident, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed, and a criminal case was initiated against Nagasundaram under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, on May 5, 2023, the petitioner’s driving license was retained by the Motor Vehicle Inspector after the bus involved in the accident was inspected. This action was taken even before the completion of the criminal investigation.
Legal Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the suspension of Nagasundaram’s driving license was premature and violated due process. They contended that the suspension order, dated June 25, 2023, was passed without waiting for the criminal court or the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to establish Nagasundaram’s guilt. The petitioner’s legal team cited a previous judgment to support their claim that suspending a driving license before the conclusion of legal proceedings could be considered prejudgment and inconsistent with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Court’s Decision
The Honorable Mrs. Justice S. Srimathy presided over the case and heard arguments from both sides. After considering the petitioner’s contentions and reviewing the impugned order, the court found merit in Nagasundaram’s arguments. The court observed that the suspension order was indeed vulnerable on multiple grounds. It noted that neither the criminal court nor the Claims Tribunal had determined Nagasundaram’s guilt at the time the suspension order was passed. The court emphasized that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity for personal hearing, as required by Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Drawing on a previous Division Bench decision, the court emphasized that invoking Section 19(1)(c) necessitated showing that the motor vehicle was used in the commission of a cognizable offense. The court agreed with Nagasundaram’s counsel that the suspension order seemed to pre-judge the issue before proper legal proceedings had taken place.
Conclusion
The court, taking into account the previous judgment and the principles of due process, proceeded to quash the impugned order dated June 25, 2023, that suspended Nagasundaram’s driving license. The court directed the authorities to return the original driving license to the petitioner within a week from the date of the court’s order. The court clarified that this decision did not bar the RTO from proceeding with further actions if any of the contingencies specified in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, had arisen or if any prescribed rules were violated.
This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to due process and avoiding prejudgment in cases involving driving license suspensions. It underscores the necessity of awaiting the conclusion of legal proceedings before taking such actions, ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and their rights are upheld.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreeya S Shekar
