By LE Desk

New Delhi, March 25: The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked the Centre, AAP government and police to reply to a lawyer’s plea claiming he was issued a traffic challan for allegedly jumping a red light and his driving licence was suspended without following the proper procedure.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh issued notice to the Ministry of Transport, the transport department of the Delhi government and the Traffic Police seeking their stand on the petition which has claimed that the driving licence was blocked from the date of incident without giving the lawyer an opportunity to contest the challan.

The plea by Suryakant Singla, represented by advocate Satyam Thareja, has also challenged the traffic department’s letter asking him to deposit with it his driving licence without first passing an order suspending it, news agency PTI reported.

He has also sought a declaration from the court that rule 21 of the Motor Vehicles Rules be declared ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act as it takes away the discretion vested with the licensing authority to disqualify or revoke a licence.

The plea has claimed that the challan for jumping a red light was issued to him on August 23, 2020 when there was no sign or signal at the site — Moolchand here — forbidding taking a left turn.

Singla has contended that he accepted the challan under protest, but before he could contest the same, his licence was blocked on August 24, 2020 without issuing him a show cause notice.

He has said that he came to know his licence was blocked when he approached the transport department in December 2020 for renewal of the same.

He was then told that the licence cannot be renewed till he pays the challan of Rs 1,000 and therefore, he paid the amount on December 16, 2020, the petition has said, adding that on January 4, he received a show cause notice as to why his licence be not suspended.

Singla has claimed that on January 5 he replied to the show cause notice, but on January 11 he received a letter asking him to submit his licence with the department and he complied with the same even though no order suspending his licence was passed at that time.

He has contended that the entire procedure followed in the instant case was illegal and violated his fundamental rights.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment