Paramasivam Driving School vs The Transport Commissioner

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 25.06.2014 suspending the license granted to the driving school of the petitioner.

The petitioner is running a driving school under the name and style of M/s Paramasivam Driving School, situated at Mampattu Village, Andarkuppam Post, Cheyyur Taluk and he has been issued with a license by the 2nd respondent vide Driving School License No. 2/TN19/2013 and it is valid from 28.03.2013 to 27.03.2018 for a period of 5 years. According to the petitioner, ever since the date of issuance of the license to run the driving school, he has been regularly running the driving school, complying with all the requirements and he has also employed two employees and nearly 1000 candidates have been trained by the driving school run by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner, in paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, had also given the working hours of the driving school and the procedure followed by them for getting license for the trainees such as LLR etc. The petitioner would further submit that the 2nd respondent had issued the show cause notice dated 19.06.2014, calling upon him to submit explanation as to why action should not be taken against the driving school for suspension and cancellation of the license for the reason that when surprise inspection was carried out by the 2nd respondent, they found the driving school was locked on 17.06.2014 and it remain locked for more than one month. The petitioner, in response to the show cause notice, submitted his explanation stating among other things that on 17.06.2014, he went to his native place in connection with family function and therefore, the driving school was closed on that day. However, the 2nd respondent, not satisfied with the explanation and also placing reliance upon the Physical Verification Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, dated 17.06.2014, has passed the impugned order dated 25.06.2014, suspending the driving school license granted to the petitioner institution with immediate effect till necessary rectification are carried out. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

Mr. M.V. Muralidaran, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has offered plausible explanation in his reply dated 23.06.2014, stating among other things that he went to his native place to attend family function and consequently, the driving school was closed on 17.06.2014 and the closure of the driving school on that day was neither wilful nor wanton, but due to bona-fide reason.

Per contra, Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned Special Government Pleader, has drawn the attention of this Court Rule 27 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and would submit that as per clause (g), the petitioner, who is running the driving school has to keep the premises of the school or establishment and the record and registers maintained by it at all reasonable times open for inspection by the licensing authority or by any person authorized in this behalf by the licensing authority. When the surprise inspection was made on 17.06.2014, the driving school run by the petitioner was found closed and therefore, the impugned order came to be correctly passed.

This Court, after going through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded to the 2nd respondent for the following reasons.

It is the specific case of the petitioner in his reply dated 23.06.2014 that in connection with the family function, he has closed the school and went to his native place. Further, in the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has also placed reliance upon the Physical Verification Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector dated 17.06.2014 and when this Court put a query to the learned Special Government Pleader as to whether a copy of the said report was furnished to the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions would submit that the copy of the said report was not furnished. It is further stated in the impugned order that the driving school license granted to the petitioner is suspended with immediate effect till necessary rectification are carried out and the learned Special Government Pleader is unable to offer any explanation as to what are the necessary rectification to be carried out by the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, if at all any necessary rectification has to be carried out, it is only by way of opening the school on the next day.

As already pointed out, the 2nd respondent has placed reliance upon the Physical Verification Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector dated 17.06.2014. Admittedly, a copy of the same has not been furnished to the petitioner. It is also to be pointed out at this juncture that the 2nd respondent has exercised statutory function in terms of Rule 28 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Therefore, he has to strictly follow the principles of natural justice. Since the copy of the said report has not been furnished to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has also placed reliance upon the said report for passing the impugned order, this Court is of the view that on this sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh adjudication.

In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 25.06.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The matter is once again remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh adjudication. It is made clear that before adjudicating the issue, the 2nd respondent is directed to furnish the true copy of the Physical Verification Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector dated 17.06.2014 and thereafter adjudicate the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders as expeditiously as possibly and not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Since the impugned order dated 25.06.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent has been set aside, the 2nd respondent shall permit the petitioner to run the driving school, however, it is subject to the result of the adjudication to be done by him pursuant to this order of remand passed by this Court in this writ petition.

No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.