Driving License Can Only Be Suspended, Revoked Or Impounded By Licensing Authority; Police Doesn't Have Unfettered Right Of Seizure: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that the driving license of a citizen cannot be impounded, suspended or revoked by traffic police personnel. It was held that while the police may seize a license from a driver over allegations of reckless driving, the same must be forwarded to the court for cognisance. If found guilty, the license may then be sent to the licensing authority for revocation or suspension.

The court also stated that the police cannot forcibly compel a person to compound the offences if they wish to defend themselves against the allegations.

Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held: "Although Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, uses the term impound, the Act does not define this expression. Consequently, the meaning of the word must be understood in its ordinary and common parlance. While the police officer is empowered to seize a licence under the said provision upon fulfilment of any of the conditions enumerated in Section 206 of the 1988 Act; however, he is to forward the same to the Court to take cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the driver and if the conditions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 206 of the 1988 Act, he is to send the licence to the licencing authority for disqualification or for initiating revocation proceeding under Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the authority to suspend, revoke, or impound the licence is vested solely in the licensing authority that issued it. Consequently, I cannot agree with the contention of respondent no. 10 that he had the power to impound the licence."

Background

The petition, filed by a practising advocate, challenged the actions of a traffic Sergeant (private respondent no. 10) who seized the petitioner's driving licence. It was stated that the petitioner's vehicle was intercepted by the private respondent no. 10 on the allegation of overspeeding. The petitioner denied the allegation, contending that the matter ought to have been processed through the designated online portal, thereby affording him his fundamental right to a fair trial before a competent court of law.

The petitioner alleged that the Respondent No. 10 while discharging his official duties, demanded a cash payment of Rs. 1,000 as a fine. Upon the petitioner's refusal to pay in cash and his insistence on making the payment through the prescribed online mode, Respondent No. 10 is stated to have seized the petitioner's driving licence without assigning reasons.

The petitioner stated that he informed Respondent No. 10 that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 206(2) of the 1988 Act, the police authorities are not empowered to seize a driving licence unless there exists a specific reason to apprehend that the alleged offender may abscond or avoid service of summons. He further apprised Respondent No. 10 that this position has been affirmed in several decisions of this Court, which have consistently held that, in the absence of a recorded and specific reason by the police officer, seizure of a driving licence is not legally permissible.

In response, Respondent No. 10 asserted that he had full authority to seize the driving licence. He further claimed that he was well-versed in the law, was aware of the functioning of this Court, and had previously discharged duties under a former Judge of this Court. On that basis, he remarked that the petitioner need not trouble himself with explaining the law to him.

A similar series of events was narrated by an intervenor, who claimed that the same sergeant had also accused him of overspeeding and stated that he had served under a former High Court judge and was "his man."

Court's verdict

Court noted that Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act (1988 Act) confers the Power of the licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence if he is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that any of the eight conditions enumerated in that provision has been fulfilled.

Therefore, the court noted that the power to revoke a driving licence or to disqualify a holder of a driving licence rests with the licensing authority as defined in Section 2(20) of the 1988 Act.

Court noted that a combined reading of Sub-Sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Section 206 of the 1988 act indicates that a police officer cannot claim to have unfettered power to seizure of a driving licence by a police officer. Seizure of a driving licence by a police officer can be done only in three contingencies enumerated therein.

"Therefore, the seizure of a driving license is not an automatic process; it is contingent upon the fulfilment of certain prescribed conditions. Furthermore, once a license is seized, the concerned authority is obligated to issue an acknowledgment to the driver. This acknowledgment serves as a temporary authorization, enabling the driver to continue operating the vehicle either until the license is returned or until the date specified in the acknowledgment," the court said.

It was noted that even if the license was seized due to reasons enumerated in Section 206 of the 1988 Act, the officer is bound to issue an acknowledgement.

"The recurring issues concerning the improper seizure of driving licences, unlawful demands for parking fees, and the unauthorized insistence by police officers on the production of registration and insurance certificates, despite the absence of any legal mandate, have repeatedly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and consumed a considerable amount of judicial time," the court said.

Accordingly, the court found the seizure of the license to be bad in law, in the present case.

Before parting, the court made certain observations on the conduct of the traffic sergeant in the present case.

It said: "It has been alleged that the petitioner and the intervener were subjected to rude and arrogant behaviour by respondent no. 10, who is further accused of making derogatory remarks against individuals practicing before this Hon‟ble Court and taking the name of a former Judge of this Court in an inappropriate manner. If such conduct did in fact occur, it is unfortunate and unexpected from a person holding the rank of an officer in the police department. This is not a police state...it is a welfare State governed by the rule of law."

The Court further stated that the incident highlighted the need for proper training for officers and staff entrusted with traffic duties and directed the Deputy Commissioner (Traffic) to arrange for such training and to ensure that, in every case of licence seizure, an acknowledgement is issued.

Case: Subhrangsu Panda Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors

Case No: WPA 9004 of 2024

Click here to read order