Madras High Court
C.Kanagaraj vs The Licensing Authority on 12 April, 2022
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.8851 of 2022
C.Kanagaraj .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Licensing Authority,
Puthur Main Road,
Pellamedu,
Coimbatore South,
Coimbatore 641 004. .. Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to return
forthwith the petitioner original driving license bearing No.TN 37
19870001785, without any condition and without any endorsement and
within a specified time as may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Ms.H.Nandhini
for Mr.R.Krishnaswamy
For Respondent : Mr.S.Arumugam
Government Advocate
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the
respondent to return forthwith his original driving license bearing No.TN 37
19870001785, without any condition and without any endorsement and
within a specified time as may be fixed by this Court.
2.By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well
as the learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondent, the
Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3.The petitioner is working as a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd. On 04.02.2022, while he was
driving the Bus from Ukkadam and Sulur Athappagoundenpudur, at about
7.30 a.m., a two wheeler rider who was having his two children on the front
petrol tank, along with a pillion rider, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and in an attempt to overtake the Bus driven by the petitioner, lost his
control and fell down near the left back wheel of the Bus. Due to the head
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
injury, the rider and pillion rider of the two wheeler died on the spot. An FIR
in Cr.No.45/2022 dated 04.02.2022 was registered against the petitioner
under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. Based on the said FIR, the
Inspector of Police, forcibly seized the petitioner's original driving license
without any notice and without any order and handed over to the respondent.
The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 11.02.2022 and the
petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.03.2022. Whenever the petitioner
approached the respondent office, they informed that license will not be
returned for six months. As per Section 19 (1)(A) of the Act, license can be
suspended only for a period of three months. The learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, without passing any order under Section 19(1) of the Act,
either disqualifying or suspending or revoking the driving license of the
petitioner, withholding the original driving license from 04.02.2022 is illegal,
arbitrary and it is violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The learned counsel further submitted that criminal case against the petitioner
is pending investigation in the FIR stage. The petitioner is not convicted by the
competent Criminal Court for the offences mentioned in the FIR. Merely
based on registration of FIR, the authorities have no power to withhold the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
driving license.
4.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on the following judgments and prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.
(i) 2010 Writ L.R. 100 [P.Sethuram Vs. The Licensing Authority, The
Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Dindigul]:
“4. Though there is, in fact, an alternative remedy of
appeal available under Section 19(3) of the Act, a
fundamental question is raised as to whether the mere
registration of a criminal complaint and the involvement
of a driver in a road traffic accident is enough to invoke
the power to suspend or revoke a driving licence under
the Act. Since a lot of cases of this nature have come up,
we deem it fit not to send the appellant to avail the
alternative remedy.
5. Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
empowers the Licensing Authority to disqualify a person
for holding or obtaining any driving licence for a
specified period or to revoke any such licence. Similarly, a
Court which convicts a person for an offence under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
Act, is empowered by Section 20(1) to disqualify such
person from holding a driving licence for a specified
period. Section 21 makes a driving licence become
suspended, if the holder of the licence had been
previously convicted of an offence punishable under
Section 184 and a case had been registered against him
on the allegation of causing the death or grievous injury
to one or more persons by dangerous driving. Section 22
empowers the Court to cancel or suspend the driving
licence, upon conviction of a person for an offence under
Section 184.
6. Obviously, Sections 20 and 22 are not applicable to the
case on hand, since the action impugned in the writ
petition did not arise out of the disqualification ordered
by a Court. There is no allegation that the appellant was
previously convicted for an offence under Section 184.
Therefore Section 21 also has no application to the case
on hand. Consequently, the only provision to which the
respondent could resort to is Section 19.
7. Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as
follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
“19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify
from holding a driving licence or revoke such
licence.
(1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after
giving the holder of a driving licence an
opportunity of being heard, that he-
(a) is a habitual criminal or habitual drunkard;
or
(b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance within the meaning of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or
(c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the
commission of a cognizable offence; or
(d) has by his previous conduct as driver of a
motor vehicle shown that his driving is likely to
be attended with danger to the public; or
(e) has obtained any driving licence or a licence
to drive a particular class or description of
motor vehicle by fraud or misrepresentation; or
(f) has committed any such act which is likely
to cause nuisance or danger to public, as may be
prescribed by the Central Government, having
regard to the objects of this Act; or
(g) has failed to submit to, or has not passed,
the tests referred to in the proviso to sub-section
(3) of section 22; or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
(h) being a person under the age of eighteen
years who has been granted a learners licence or
a driving licence with the consent in writing of
the person having the care of the holder of the
licence and has ceased to be in such care, it
may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make
an order-
(i) disqualifying that person for a specified
period for holding or obtaining any driving
licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions
of vehicles specified in the licence; or
(ii) revoke any such licence.
(2) Where an order under sub-section (1) is
made, the holder of a driving licence shall
forthwith surrender his driving licence to the
licensing authority making the order, if the
driving licence has not already been
surrendered, and the licensing authority shall,-
(a) if the driving licence is a driving licence
issued under this Act, keep it until the
disqualification has expired or has been
removed; or
(b) if it is not a driving licence issued under this
Act, endorse the disqualification upon it and
send it to the licensing authority by which it was
issued; or
(c) in the case of revocation of any licence,
endorse the revocation upon it and if it is not the
authority which issued the same, intimate the
fact of revocation to the authority which issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
that licence:
Provided that where the driving licence of a
person authorises him to drive more than one
class or description of motor vehicles and the
order, made under sub-section (1), disqualifies
him from driving any specified class or
description of motor vehicles, the licensing
authority shall endorse the disqualification upon
the driving licence and return the same to the
holder.
(3) Any person aggrieved by an order made by a
licensing authority under sub-section (1) may,
within thirty days of the receipt of the order,
appeal to the prescribed authority, and such
appellate authority shall give notice to the
licensing authority and hear either party if so
required by that party and may pass such order
as it thinks fit and an order passed by any such
appellate authority shall be final.”
8. A bare reading of Section 19(1) shows that the
Licensing Authority has the power to revoke any licence or
disqualify a person for a specified period from holding or
obtaining a driving licence, if any of the contingencies
prescribed in Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub Section (1) of
Section 19 arises. Moreover, the power under Section
19(1) can be invoked only after giving an opportunity of
being heard to the holder of the licence and for reasons to
be recorded in writing.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
9. But in the case on hand, the licence of the appellant was
impounded or retained by the police immediately after the
accident. Thereafter, the respondent issued the show cause
notice under Section 19(1) of the Act, after getting a
report from the police. Therefore the impounding of the
licence has actually preceded the issue of show cause
notice.
10. Apart from the above, there is no allegation, either in
the notice or in the order impugned in the writ petition,
that the appellant is a habitual criminal or habitual
drunkard, so as to attract Clause (a) of Section 19(1) of
the Act. Similarly, neither the show cause notice nor the
order impugned in the writ petition, imputes the appellant
with any of the ingredients necessary under Clauses (b) to
(h) of Sub Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. Except
stating that as per the report of the Inspector of Police, the
appellant was guilty of rash and negligent driving, the
impugned order does not indicate the category in Clauses
(a) to (h) of Section 19(1), under which the case of the
appellant would fall.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
11. The respondent has, in the impugned order, pre-
concluded the issue that the appellant is guilty of rash and
negligent driving, even before the Criminal Court or the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal went into the issue. Even
to invoke Section 19(1)(c), it is necessary to show that the
Motor Vehicle is used in the commission of a cognizable
offence. Without making a specific averment regarding the
same, the order suspending the driving licence cannot be
taken to be passed after due application of mind.
12. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the
order of the learned Judge is set aside and the writ
petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to return
the driving licence of the appellant, within a week of
receipt of a copy of this order. However, it shall not
preclude the 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 of
Section 19(1)(f) are violated. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
(ii) Order of the Madurai Bench of this Court dated 10.11.2020 made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
in W.P.(MD).No.15797 of 2020, [G.Arumugam Vs. The Regional
Transport Officer, And Licensing Authority, Madurai North, Madurai
and another], wherein the Madurai Bench of this Court has held as follows:
“ 8.Admittedly, no final order has been passed by
the first respondent under Section 19 of the Motor
Vehicles Act impounding the licence of the petitioner. This
being the case, the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner squarely applies to the facts of
the instant case.
9.In the case on hand, even without passing any
order for cancellation or suspension or revocation of the
licence, the respondents have seized the driving licence of
the petitioner. The petitioner is admittedly, employed as
Driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation(Madurai)Ltd. He has to eke out his
livelihood and therefore, without driving licence, he
cannot continue his duty as a Driver with Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation(Madurai)Ltd. Since no final
order has been passed under Section 19 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the original licence of the petitioner will have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
to be necessarily returned back to the petitioner by the
respondents.
10.For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the
respondents to return the petitioner's original driving
licence bearing DL No.TN67 19980002634 to the
petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
11.With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.”
5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent
submitted that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the
respondent will consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders
on the show cause notice within the time limit fixed by this Court.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the
entire materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
7.From the materials on record, it is seen that on 04.02.2022, while
driving the Bus, accident occurred and FIR is registered against the petitioner
in Crime No.45/2022. The said criminal case is pending and petitioner is not
convicted for any cognizable offence. In similar facts, in the judgment
reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 (referred to above) relied on by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court has held
that the license can be suspended only when the driver is convicted for
cognizable offence and pending criminal case, suspension of driving license is
not valid. In the present case, even without passing any order for cancellation
or suspension or revocation of the licence, the respondent has seized the
driving licence of the petitioner.
8.Considering the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent, judgment of the Division Bench and order of
Madurai Bench of this Court referred to above, the respondent is directed to
return the original driving licence to the petitioner as early as possible, in any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
event within a week from today, i.e., on or before 19.04.2022, after getting
necessary written undertaking and retaining photocopies of the original
driving license and under due acknowledgement. The petitioner shall go over
to the office of the respondent on any working day in the afternoon sessions
between 02.00 P.M and 4.00 P.M and the original driving license shall be
handed over to him under due acknowledgement.
9.It is made clear that the writ petitioner shall produce the original
driving license as and when called for, make himself available for the criminal
case to proceed and cooperate with the investigation.
With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
12.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
gsa
Note : Issue order copy on 19.04.2022.
To
The Licensing Authority,
Puthur Main Road,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
Pellamedu,
Coimbatore South,
Coimbatore 641 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
W.P.No.9055 of 2022
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
