Regional Transport Officers (RTOs) cannot suspend or revoke driving licences of people involved in road accidents for the first time, until they are found guilty of rash and negligent driving by the criminal courts or Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, the Madras High Court Bench here has ruled.
Allowing a writ petition filed by a government bus driver, Justice S. Rajeswaran said that suspending/revoking the driving licences solely on the basis of First Information Reports filed by the police would amount to predetermination of guilt even before the courts concerned could take a decision.
The judge pointed out that Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, empowers RTOs as well as courts, which convict drivers for various offences under the enactment, to disqualify the offenders from holding or obtaining driving licences for a specific period or permanently. Section 21 states that a driving licence would get suspended for six months if the licence holder had been previously convicted under Section 184 (driving in a manner dangerous to other people) and again a case was registered against him on the allegation of causing death or grievous injury to one or more persons by dangerous driving.
Further, the Act empowers the RTOs to suspend or revoke a driving licence if the holder was a habitual criminal, drunkard or an addict to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Indulging in acts causing danger to others’ lives and obtaining licence by fraud or misrepresentation could also be reasons for suspension or revocation.
In the present case, the petitioner’s licence was suspended on January 18 after a two-wheeler rider died in an accident involving the bus driven by the petitioner. The Madurai Central RTO had rejected the petitioner’s contention that the accident occurred not because of his fault but due to rash and negligent driving of the victim.
Stating that the licence had been suspended under Section 19(1) (c) (using a motor vehicle in commission of a cognizable offence), Mr. Justice Rajeswaran said that the suspension order was bereft of specific averments about such usage and hence it could not be considered to have been passed after due application of mind.
