
    Rose SONNIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY DIVISION, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 7197.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    Nov. 12, 1979.
    
      Foye L. Lowe, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
    Dubuisson, Brinkhaus & Dauzat, Jimmy L. Dauzat, Opelousas, for plaintiff-appellee.
    Before CULPEPPER, WATSON and GUIDRY, JJ.
   WATSON, Judge.

Plaintiff, Rose Sonnier, brought this suit to retain her driving privileges after being notified by defendant, the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety, Financial Responsibility Division, that she must surrender her driver’s license for a thirty day period. The trial court rendered judgment on March 5, 1979, requiring plaintiff to relinquish her driver’s license, license plate and registration certificate for thirty days but granting her a temporary permit to drive without them during that time. The Department of Public Safety has perfected a devolutive appeal.

Since the thirty day period has long since passed and the appeal is not suspen-sive, no justiciable issue is presented. The matter is moot, and the appeal is dismissed. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2164; Behler v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 251 La. 959, 207 So.2d 758 (1968). Costs, insofar as allowed by law, are taxed against the defendant, State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety, Financial Responsibility Division.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

CULPEPPER, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by GUIDRY, J.

GUIDRY, J., concurs and assigns written reasons.

GUIDRY, Judge,

concurring.

I concur that the issue presented by this appeal is moot, however, in my view the trial court erred in granting plaintiff driving privileges during the period of suspension mandated by the clear provisions of LSA-R.S. 32:863. Act 115 of 1977 (LSA-R.S. 32:861 et seq.) requires that every self propelled motor vehicle registered in this state, with exceptions not here relevant, shall be covered by a motor vehicle liability policy or equivalent security. This act also sets forth mandatory penalty provisions which are designed to assure compliance with that law, the minimum penalty being revocation of registration and suspension of driving privileges for a period of 30 days. Our law accords no authority to the courts for the grant of driving privileges during the period of revocation and suspension mandated by R.S. 32:863. If we permit the enforcement provisions of the act to be circumvented, the law is rendered meaningless and the will of the legislature is frustrated.

For these reasons I respectfully concur.  