Madras High Court
P.Mahalingam vs The Regional Transport Officer ... on 25 March, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.5341 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.5341 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.4352 of 2022
P.Mahalingam ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The Regional Transport Officer and
Licensing Authority,
Kumbakonam.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thirupanandal Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
Crime No.186 of 2022 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith return
petitioner's original driving license bearing DL No. TN 49 Z 19920001386 to the
petitioner within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul
For Respondents : Mr.M.Prakash
Additional Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.5341 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to direct the
respondents to return petitioner's original driving licence bearing DL No. TN 49 Z
19920001386 to the petitioner.
2.The petitioner is an employee of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Limited and that the petitioner on 04.03.2022 had caused death of
two persons, while driving the bus belonging to the State Transport Corporation.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was driving the bus
slowly and suddenly a pig crossed the road from the left side to the right side and
in order to avoid hitting the pig, the petitioner applied break and since the road
was slippery, the bus hit a TATA Ace van coming from the opposite direction.
3.It is the case of the petitioner that the said TATA Ace van was driven in a
rash and negligent manner and therefore, the death and injuries on account of the
aforesaid accident were not on account of the petitioner's mistake. It is the further
case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been a Driver of the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited and had rendered his unblemished
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.5341 of 2022
service for the last 9 years. It is submitted that the seizure of the licence on
14.03.2022 was contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of P.Sethuraman Vs. the Licensing Authority reported in (2010) 2
MLJ 778. A reference was made to paragraph Nos.8 to 11 from the aforesaid
judgment, which reads as under:-
“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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.5341 of 2022
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.”
4.It is submitted that the respondents ought to have issued a proper show
cause notice and therefore, the seizure of the licence was without authority of law.
It is further submitted that under a similar circumstances, the Division Bench of
this Court interfered and directed the respondents to return the driving licence
within a week time.
5.Opposing the prayer, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the
respondents submits that the accident took place on 04.03.2022 and the FIR came
to be registered against the petitioner under Section 304 A of IPC in Crime No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.5341 of 2022
186 of 2022 before the 2nd respondent police station. It is further submitted that
the licence was seized on 14.03.2022. It is submitted that the petitioner has
rushed to this Court without giving enough time to the respondents even respond
to the petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2022, which was received by the 1st
respondent office on 21.03.2022. It is submitted that the writ petition has been
immediately filed on 24.03.2022 and therefore the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents further
submits that the 1st respondent is in the process of issuing a show cause notice to
suspend the licence of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has caused
death of two persons, who were involved in the accident. It is therefore submitted
that it would not be appropriate to hand over the licence to the petitioner
immediately.
7.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.5341 of 2022
8.The action of the 1st respondent seizing the licence of the petitioner is
contrary to the enunciation of law by the Division Bench of this Court in the
Sethuraman's case (referred supra). The petitioner therein was involved in an
accident, where FIR came to be registered under Section 304A of IPC. As long as
the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Division Bench is there, the same is binding to
this Court. Therefore, I direct the respondents herein to return the licence to the
petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Liberty is given to the respondents to issue appropriate notice within such
time. In case such show cause notice is issued for cancelling or suspending the
licence, the same shall be decided by the respondents within a period of 15 days
thereafter. It is needless to state that the petitioner shall also be heard before
passing such orders.
9.The writ petition stands dismissed, in terms of the above observation. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 25.03.2022
Internet : Yes / No
mm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.5341 of 2022
To
1.The Regional Transport Officer and
Licensing Authority,
Kumbakonam.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thirupanandal Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.5341 of 2022
C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
W.P.(MD)No.5341 of 2022
25.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
