HC declines plea challenging penalty for not driving without

The Madras High Court has declined to entertain a petition challenging the state authorities' decision to levy penalty on persons driving vehicles without carrying original licence.
It also observed that accidental omission to actually carry licence on any particular day may attract some penalty but would not entail punishment of incarceration.
The First Bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar passed the order on a plea by All India Confederation of Goods Vehicle Owners Association challenging the memorandum of ADGP, State Traffic Planning Cell, dated August 24.
According to the memorandum, drivers of vehicles need to carry driving licence with them while driving.

"The main thrust of the challenge to the said memorandum is that drivers of goods vehicles cannot be prosecuted for not carrying their driving licences. In our view the impugned memorandum is in public interest," the judges said.
Interference with the impugned memorandum would be against public interest, they added.

"A policy decision taken by the authorities with a view to check accidents by reason or rash and negligent driving by unauthorised persons ought not to be interfered with in a so called Public Interest Litigation.
The Bench while referring to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and in particular Section 3 thereof with Rule 139 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, said that the above makes it absolutely clear that no person can drive a motor vehicle unless a driving licence is issued to him and of course driving licence of a kind which enables the driver to drive the particular kind of vehicle.

The Bench, referring to Rule 139 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, said the same provides that a driver or conductor of a motor vehicle shall produce certificates of registration, insurance, fitness and permit and it casts an obligation on the driver of any motor vehicle to produce his licence on demand.
Stating that the impugned memorandum merely warns drivers driving without licence would attract prosecution, the Bench said, "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 MV Act 1988 or the rules framed there under.

"Accidental omission to actually carry licence on any particular day may attract some penalty but would not entail punishment of incarceration for a considerable length of time," the judges observed.
To ensure that vehicles are driven by licensed drivers, it is absolutely imperative that licences are frequently checked.
Unless licences are checked at random and required to be produced on demand, the rules with regard to driving of vehicles in accordance with licence would be observed in their violation, the Bench said.
Photocopies are never authentic and may not necessarily be an identical copy of original, they added.
"We see no reason to interfere with the decision in the interest of security and traffic safety and the arguments sought to be advanced are in our considered view thoroughly misconceived," the judges said.

Observing that the process of the High Court is often misused in the guise of PILs, the bench said, "Gross abuse of the process of PIL 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.