Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhiku @ Purushottam S/o Ramprasad Sahu, owned a vehicle bearing registration No. MH32/C0011. On 22 October 2009, the vehicle was allegedly found carrying liquor. The respondent, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Wardha, issued a show cause notice dated 28 October 2009 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the registration of the vehicle should not be cancelled for a period of 120 days. The notice was served on the petitioner on 7 November 2009, and he was given only one day to respond. The petitioner did not submit any reply, and the respondent passed the impugned order on 8 November 2009 directing the petitioner to submit the registration certificate. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's counsel argued that although an alternate remedy existed under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the writ petition was maintainable because the impugned order was passed in breach of principles of natural justice, as only one day was given to show cause. The court agreed, finding merit in the submission that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity. The court held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside solely on the ground of violation of natural justice. The court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within eight days, and the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Alternate Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - A writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable even if an alternate remedy exists, when the impugned order is passed in breach of principles of natural justice. The court held that since the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause, the petition is maintainable. (Paras 6-7) B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Cancellation of Registration - Reasonable Opportunity - Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The respondent issued a show cause notice giving only one day to the petitioner to show cause why the registration of his vehicle should not be cancelled for 120 days. The court held that this did not constitute a reasonable opportunity and violated principles of natural justice, rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order directing the petitioner to submit the registration certificate of his vehicle is sustainable when the petitioner was given only one day to show cause, and whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 8 November 2009, and directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within eight days. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- reasonable opportunity
- maintainability of writ petition despite alternate remedy
- Section 57 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Article 226 Constitution of India
