Madras High Court
M.Hariharan vs Inspector Of Police on 9 August, 2021
W.P.No.16527 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P No.16527 of 2021
and WMP No.17494 of 2021
M.Hariharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Inspector of Police
Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram,
District.
2 The Licensing Authority Cum -
Regional Transport Officer, Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the 2nd respondent made in Show cause No.TN.87 /2021
/186 dated 21/06/2021 suspending the driving license of the petitioner
for a period of six months from 18/04/2021 to 17/10/2021 and to
quash the same consequently direct the 2nd respondent to return the
original driving license (DL No.TN21 19950003025) to the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.1/9
W.P.No.16527 of 2021
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan
For Respondents : Mr.U.Bharanidharan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the
impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 21.06.2021
suspending the driving license of the petitioner for a period of six
months.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a driver
working with Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation at Villupuram.
On 18.04.2021, while the petitioner was driving the vehicle, an
accident took place as a result of which a two wheeler rider died on
the spot. Based on a complaint given, an FIR was registered by the 1 st
respondent in Crime No.389 of 2021 for an offence under Section 279 &
304-A of IPC. The investigation is still pending. During the course of
investigation, the 1st respondent had seized the driving license from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.2/9
W.P.No.16527 of 2021
the petitioner. Thereafter, the 1st respondent had handed over the
original license to the 2nd respondent and recommended for the
cancellation of the driving license. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd
respondent has suspended the driving license of the petitioner for a
period of six months from 18.04.2021 to 17.10.2021. Aggrieved by the
same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.U.Bharanidharan, learned Government Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. In the considered view of this Court, the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier
order passed by this Court in WP No.7315 of 2020 dated 01.06.2020.
The relevant portions in the order are extracted hereunder :-
5.The learned counsel specifically drew the attention of
this Court to the relevant portions of the judgment and the same
is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.3/9
W.P.No.16527 of 2021
8.While considering the objection with regard to the
availability of alternative remedy of appeal is concerned, the
Division Bench has rejected such contention. The very same
decision was followed by the learned single Judge of this Court
reported in 2013 Writ L.R.843 (S.Duraivelu vs. The Regional
Transport Officer, West Thambaram, Chennai & 2 others)
wherein the learned Judge has observed in Paragraph No.4 as
follows:
4.The licence of the petitioner was suspended solely on
the ground that he was involved in a criminal case under Section
304-A IPC. The criminal case is still pending. The factum of
involvement of the petitioner in an offence under Section 304-A
of the Indian Penal Code would not give any jurisdiction to the
respondent to suspend the license. Therefore, I am of the view
that the respondent was not justified in suspending the license of
the petitioner.
9.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order is set aside. However, it shall not preclude the
2nd respondent from initiating any action, if any of the
contingencies specified in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19(1) of
the Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the
Central Government in pursuance o Section 19(1)(f) are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.4/9
W.P.No.16527 of 2021
violated. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
6.Per contra, Mr.E.Balamurgan, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents
submitted that even if this Court is inclined to interfere with the
impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the same should
not come in the way of initiating action against the petitioner
under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the concerned
Rules.
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions
made on either side and also the materials available on record.
8.The period of suspension has already elapsed on
20.05.2020 and therefore, what remains is only regarding the
endorsement that has been made in the original driving licence
which is now in the custody of the 2nd respondent. It is clear
from the above judgment that a licence cannot be suspended
solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.5/9
W.P.No.16527 of 2021
case and an investigation is pending. This Court had held that
the 2nd respondent will not have the jurisdiction to suspend the
licence merely on the ground of the pendency of the
investigation in a criminal case. This Court had therefore
interfered with the order of suspension by granting liberty to the
authority to initiate further action in accordance with law.
5. This Court while passing the above order had taken
into consideration the earlier judgement passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in [P.Sethuraman Vs. The Licensing Authority, The
Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Officer,
Dindigul] in 2010 Writ Law reporter 100. The Division Bench in the
said judgement had categorically held that where a criminal case is
pending investigation, there is no jurisdiction for the respondent to
suspend the license. It was also further held that the 2nd respondent
can initiate action only if any of the contingencies are satisfied in
Clauses (a to h) of Section 19(1) of Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.6/9
W.P.No.16527 of 2021
same, this Court has to necessarily interfere with the impugned
proceedings of the 2nd respondent on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a ground
to the effect that the impugned proceedings were made even without
issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, this Court does not want
to go into that issue since this Court is interfering with the order
passed by the 2nd respondent on the ground of jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned show
cause notice of the 2nd respondent No.TN.87 /2021 /186 dated
21/06/2021 is hereby quashed and there shall be a direction to the 2nd
respondent to hand over the original driving license to the petitioner
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent will be at liberty to
initiate action against the petitioner if any of the contingencies
satisfies clauses (a to h) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act or if it
is found that there is a violation of any of the rules prescribed by the
Central Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.7/9
W.P.No.16527 of 2021
7. This writ petition is allowed with the above
directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
09.08.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
rka
To
1. Inspector of Police
Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram,
District.
2 The Licensing Authority Cum -
Regional Transport Officer, Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.8/9
W.P.No.16527 of 2021
N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J.
rka
W.P No.16527 of 2021
09.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.9/9
