Madras High Court
M.Panneerselvam vs The Regional Transport Officer on 22 June, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.12788 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.12788 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.9078 of 2022
M.Panneerselvam ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Regional Transport Officer
and Licensing Authority,
Transport Department,
Karaikudi.
2. The Regional Transport Officer
and Licensing Authority,
Transport Department,
TN55Z Aranthangi Unit Office,
Aranthangi.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Karaikudi North Police Station,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12788 of 2022
respondents to forthwith return the petitioner's original driving licence
bearing TN39 19 97 0001850 within a time that may be fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus, directing the
respondents to return the petitioner's original driving licence bearing
No.TN39 19 97 0001850 within a stipulated time.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is working as a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, Pudukottai Region. When he was driving a vehicle on
12.05.2022, an accident had occurred near Karaikudi, in which, a
person succumbed. On the complaint of the victim's father, the third
respondent Police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.
130 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 304 A and 279
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12788 of 2022
IPC and also seized the petitioner's driving licence and handed over the
same to the Regional Transport Office, Karaikudi, for taking necessary
action against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is
not responsible for the said accident, since there was no rash and
negligent driving on the part of the petitioner and he can establish his
case during the trial. He further submits that the first respondent is also
attempting to impound the petitioner's licence even before the filing of
final report in Crime No.130 of 2022 and if any action is taken by the
first respondent, then, the petitioner would be prejudiced. In support of
his submission, he has also relied upon the Judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing
Authority, Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul, reported in 2010
WLR 100.
3. Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate, takes
notice on behalf of the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12788 of 2022
4. In the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Officer,
Dindigul, reported in 2010 WLR 100, relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, it has been held as follows:
“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 u/s.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.
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 u/s.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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12788 of 2022
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12788 of 2022
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 rule
as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of
Section 19(1)(f) are violated. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
5. Following the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the first respondent to return the driving licence to the
petitioner, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
22.06.2022
Index : Yes / No.
Internet: Yes / No.
ogy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12788 of 2022
To
1. The Regional Transport Officer
and Licensing Authority,
Transport Department,
Karaikudi.
2. The Regional Transport Officer
and Licensing Authority,
Transport Department,
TN55Z Aranthangi Unit Office,
Aranthangi.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Karaikudi North Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12788 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
W.P.(MD)No.12788 of 2022
22.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
