The Madras High Court has upheld the state government’s decision to insist that vehicle users carry their original driver’s licence..This was effectively confirmed by the First Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar while dismissing an appeal made by the All India Confederation of Goods and Vehicles Owners Association..Last August, a memorandum had been issued by the state to the effect that those found driving without carrying their original driver’s licence would be prosecuted under Sections 130 and 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The memo was set to take effect on September 1, 2017..Among others, the petitioner Confederation had also approached the High Court challenging the said memorandum on the ground that insistence on carrying the original driver’s licence was ultra vires the MV Act..The Confederation had submitted that it was sufficient, particularly for drivers of goods vehicles, to carry duly attested true copies of the licence. Apart from the inconvenience caused, the petitioners had also argued that insistence on carrying the original licence would lead to undue harassment and corruption on the part of state officials..The Court found that as per the correct reading of the MV Act, it is mandatory that a driver carry the original driver’s licence and further produce it on demand by the concerned authority..“A reading of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in particular Section 3 thereof with Rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 makes It absolutely clear that no person can drive a motor vehicle unless a driving licence is issued to him….…The impugned memorandum merely warns drivers that driving without licence would attract prosecution. Under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 182 of the said Act, driving without a licence is an offence….…A driver in possession of the licence is obliged to produce the licence on demand. There is nothing in the impugned memorandum which is patently contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 of the Rules framed thereunder.”.The Bench made it clear that a driving licence in this context would mean the original of the driving licence, and not a copy, even if it is attested. Emphasizing that it is imperative to frequently check that vehicles are driven by licenced drivers, the court remarked,.“Photocopies are never authentic and may not necessarily be an identical copy of the original. Some interpolations may also be almost impossible to detect at the first glance unless compared with the original.”.Terming the arguments made by the petitioners as thoroughly misconceived, the Court therefore proceeded to uphold the impugned memorandum issued in public interest..While closing the matter, the Court also broached the topic of misuse of Public Interest Litigation when it opined,.“The object of public interest litigation is to make justice available to the public at large. It was often found that the economically or socially underprivileged, the deprived, the illiterate, the semi literate, the differently abled and other disadvantaged persons lacking adequate funds had no access to justice…..Gross abuse of the process of public interest litigation is clogging the business of the Courts and consuming unnecessary judicial time which could have been spent in deciding more important issues involving the rights of citizens… .A policy decision taken by the respondents with a view to check motor accidents by reason of rash and negligent driving by unauthorized persons ought not to be interfered with in a so-called public interest litigation.”
The Madras High Court has upheld the state government’s decision to insist that vehicle users carry their original driver’s licence..This was effectively confirmed by the First Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar while dismissing an appeal made by the All India Confederation of Goods and Vehicles Owners Association..Last August, a memorandum had been issued by the state to the effect that those found driving without carrying their original driver’s licence would be prosecuted under Sections 130 and 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The memo was set to take effect on September 1, 2017..Among others, the petitioner Confederation had also approached the High Court challenging the said memorandum on the ground that insistence on carrying the original driver’s licence was ultra vires the MV Act..The Confederation had submitted that it was sufficient, particularly for drivers of goods vehicles, to carry duly attested true copies of the licence. Apart from the inconvenience caused, the petitioners had also argued that insistence on carrying the original licence would lead to undue harassment and corruption on the part of state officials..The Court found that as per the correct reading of the MV Act, it is mandatory that a driver carry the original driver’s licence and further produce it on demand by the concerned authority..“A reading of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in particular Section 3 thereof with Rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 makes It absolutely clear that no person can drive a motor vehicle unless a driving licence is issued to him….…The impugned memorandum merely warns drivers that driving without licence would attract prosecution. Under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 182 of the said Act, driving without a licence is an offence….…A driver in possession of the licence is obliged to produce the licence on demand. There is nothing in the impugned memorandum which is patently contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 of the Rules framed thereunder.”.The Bench made it clear that a driving licence in this context would mean the original of the driving licence, and not a copy, even if it is attested. Emphasizing that it is imperative to frequently check that vehicles are driven by licenced drivers, the court remarked,.“Photocopies are never authentic and may not necessarily be an identical copy of the original. Some interpolations may also be almost impossible to detect at the first glance unless compared with the original.”.Terming the arguments made by the petitioners as thoroughly misconceived, the Court therefore proceeded to uphold the impugned memorandum issued in public interest..While closing the matter, the Court also broached the topic of misuse of Public Interest Litigation when it opined,.“The object of public interest litigation is to make justice available to the public at large. It was often found that the economically or socially underprivileged, the deprived, the illiterate, the semi literate, the differently abled and other disadvantaged persons lacking adequate funds had no access to justice…..Gross abuse of the process of public interest litigation is clogging the business of the Courts and consuming unnecessary judicial time which could have been spent in deciding more important issues involving the rights of citizens… .A policy decision taken by the respondents with a view to check motor accidents by reason of rash and negligent driving by unauthorized persons ought not to be interfered with in a so-called public interest litigation.”
