Madras High Court

P. Sekar vs The Regional Transport Officer on 20 January, 2023

Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 20/1/2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

P. Sekar ... Petitioner

1. The Regional Transport Officer
Regional Transport Office
A. Kumaramangalam Village
Kanayar Post
Ulundurpet 606 107
Kallakurichi District.

2. The Inspector of Police
Thirunavalur Police Station
Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent

to return the petitioner's Original Driving Licence bearing No.TN-57-

20060004354 to the petitioner forthwith.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:1/16
Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

For Petitioner ... Ms.D.Kalaiselvi

For respondents ... Mrs.R.Anitha
Special Government Pleader

-----
ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to return

the petitioner's Original Driving Licence bearing No.TN-57-20060004354 to

the petitioner forthwith.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a driver of a bus owned by

the State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. The bus bearing Registration

No.TN-01-AN-3454, which the petitioner was driving was involved in a

road traffic accident that happened on 16/12/2022, at 12.50 a.m., in which a

man died. Immediately, a First Information Report in Crime No.568 of

2022, dated 16/12/2022 was registered against the petitioner, for an offence

under Sections 279 and 304 – A of the Indian Penal Code, by the second

respondent Police.

3. While registering the First Information, the second respondent

who had already seized the Driving Licence of the petitioner handed over

the same to the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner had submitted a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:2/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

representation, dated 23/12/2022, to return the original Driving Licence.

Since the same has not been considered so far, the petitioner has come

forward the present writ petition praying for the relief as stated therein.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

Police has no power to seize the licence and forwarded the same to the first

respondent. The first respondent cannot impound the licence until the

criminal Court finds him guilty. He further contended that in many cases,

this Court has held that retaining licence by the first respondent is not

permissible under law without any enquiry and the Police also has no power

to seize the licence. Mere retaining the licence by the first respondent, in

fact, will have a serious consequences and will affect the drivers engaged by

the Corporation and Government Undertakings. Therefore, seeks direction

to release the licence.

6. Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents would submit that in view of sub-clause (4) to Section 206 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:3/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, Police can very well seize

the licence from the driver, who caused an accident. Similarly, under

Section 19 (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, first

respondent, viz., Regional Transport Officer have a power to suspend or

revoke the licence. Hence, submitted that when the authority has power

under the statute to seize the impugned licence, the same cannot be returned

at the present. Hence opposed the writ petition.

7. It is not disputed that immediately after the accident, licence was

seized by the second respondent and he appears to have forwarded the same

to the first respondent. It is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Division Bench in Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority reported in 2010

Writ L.R.100, wherein at para 8, the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that

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 reasons to be

recorded in writing.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:4/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

8. Similarly in S. Murugan vs. Licensing Authority [W.A.(MD)

No.176 of 2009 dated 22.06.2009, a Hon'ble Division Bench of Madurai

Bench of Madras High Court, took the same view. However, directed the

Respondent to return the licence, as the licence was retained both without an

order in writing and without affording an opportunity of being heard. This

is a clear violation of the provisions of the Statute.

9. In S. Krishnan Vs. The Licensing Authority

[MANU/TN/1360/2012] the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madurai Bench of

Madras High Court, at para 6 held that Section 19 itself gives power to the

authority to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence. When the

licensing authority is satisfied after giving notice to the licensee and

enumerated 10 disqualification clauses, one among them was Section 19 (1)

offence is made out, all that is required is the authority should satisfy itself

whether the petitioner has utilized the vehicle which resulted in a cognizable

offence. Admittedly, this appellant used the vehicle and caused the death of

a person.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:5/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

10. Following the above judgments, a Single Judge of this Court has

passed an order in K. Perumal vs. The Regional Transport Officer

[W.P.(MD) No.9605 of 2022 dated 12.05.2022 – Madurai Bench of

Madras High Court].

11. In one of the Writ Petitions filed before me, i.e., in S. Baskaran

vs. The Inspector of Police [W.P.No.33204 of 2022 dated 09.12.2022 –

Madras High Court], this Court, has directed the authority to return the

driving licence. However, in Para No.5 of the Order, this Court had directed

the second respondent to await the final orders in the criminal proceedings

and if the criteria as provided under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 is satisfied, second respondent is at liberty to initiate proceedings

against the petitioner for suspension/revocation of the driving licence.

12. The observation made by me, in the above Writ Petition

(W.P.No.33204 of 2022) is that action under Section 19 (1) of the M.V.Act,

could be initiated only after the criminal case is concluded is no longer good

law, in view of the Division Bench Judgments referred above. In the

Division Bench judgments cited above, the power under Section 19 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, to suspend or revoke the licence by the licensing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:6/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

authority have been elaborately dealt with. In such a view of the matter, the

contention that till the criminal courts finds the driver guilty of the offence,

no action could be initiated under section 19 of the Act to revoke or suspend

or impound the licence by the Licensing Authority cannot be accepted.

13. Learned Special Government appearing for the respondents

submitted that the police can seize the licence in view of the amendment

under Sections 206 and 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is relevant to

extract the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act amended and inserted:

“ 206. Power of police officer to impound document.

(1) Any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that any identification mark carried on a motor vehicle or any licence, permit, certificate of registration, certificate of insurance or other document produced to him by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle is a false document within the meaning of section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) seize the mark or document and call upon the driver or owner of the vehicle to account for his possession of or the presence in the vehicle of such mark or document.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:7/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

(2) Any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle who is charged with any offence under this Act may abscond or otherwise avoid the service of a summons, seize any licence held by such driver and forward it into the Court taking cognizance of the offence and the said Court shall on the first appearance of such driver before it, return the licence to him in exchange for the temporary acknowledgment given under sub-section (3).

(3) A police officer or other person seizing a licence under sub-section (2) shall give to the person surrendering the licence a temporary acknowledgment therefor and such acknowledgment shall authorise the holder to drive until the licence has been returned to him or until such date as may be specified by the police officer or other person in the acknowledgment whichever is earlier:

Provided that if any Magistrate, police officer or other person authorised by the State Government in this behalf is, on an application made to him, satisfied that the licence cannot be, or has not been, returned to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:8/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

holder thereof before the date specified in the acknowledgment for any reason for which the holder is not responsible, the Magistrate, police officer or other person, as the case may be, may extend the period of authorization to drive to such date as may be specified in the acknowledgment.

(4) A police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed an offence under any of sections 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194C, 194D, or 194E, seize the driving licence held by such driver and forward it to the licensing authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under section 19:

Provided that the person seizing the licence shall give to the person surrendering the licence a temporary acknowledgement therefor, but such acknowledgement shall not authorise the holder to drive until the licence has been returned to him.”

14.a. On perusal of the above provisions sub-clause (1) gives power

to the police to seize the licence if the police has reason to believe that there

is any mark or document relate to the vehicle is false. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:9/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

b. Similarly sub-clause (2) empowers the police, authorised by the

State Government, if the police has reason to believe that the driver of motor

vehicle who is charged with any offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, may

abscond or otherwise, avoid the service of summons, seize any licence held

by such driver and forward it to the Court concerned. The court concerned

can return the licence to the concerned parties.

c. Sub-clause (3) deals with the temporary acknowledgment by the

police officer authorising the holder of driving licence to drive the vehicle

until the licence returned to him.

d. Sub-Clause (4) empowers the police officer to seize the licence if

he has reason to believe that the driver of the motor vehicle committed an

offence under any of Sections 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194C, 194D, or 194E

of the M.V. Act,

15. A careful perusal of the Sub-Clause (4) of Section 206 makes it

clear that when the police officer has reason to believe that the offence

committed in any of the Sections, particularly in the Motor Vehicles Act, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:10/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

such officer can seize the licence. On such seizure, acknowledgment to be

given by the police authorising the holder to drive the vehicle until the

licence is returned to him.

16. Section 19 (1) (A) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019

makes it clear that where a licence has been forwarded to the licensing

authority under sub-section (4) of Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

the licensing authority, if satisfied after giving the holder of the driving

licence, an opportunity of being heard, may either discharge the holder of a

driving licence or, it may for detailed reasons recorded in writing, make an

order disqualifying such person from holding or obtaining any licence to

drive all or any class or description of vehicles specified in the licence—

(a) for a first offence, for a period of three months;

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, with revocation

of the driving licence of such person.

17. Therefore, before any action taken under Section 19 of the Act, an

opportunity has to be given by the Licensing Authority. Therefore, the

seizure power of the police introduced under Section 206 of the Act is only https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:11/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

in certain circumstances. Only if the police officer has reason to believe that

offence has committed in any of the following Sections 183, 184, 185, 189,

190, 194C, 194D, or 194E under sub-clause (4) of Section 206 of the M.V.

Act, he can seize the licence and forward to the Licensing Authority. The

combined reading of Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Section 206 of M.V.Act,

makes it clear that only under three contingencies, the Police officer can

seize the licence, particularly, when the identification mark or licence or the

documents relating to the vehicle are false, those documents can be seized

under sub-clause (1).

18. The second contingency on which Police officer can seize the

licence is if any person charged under the M.V. Act, try to abscond or avoid

service of summons, licence may be seized and temporary acknowledgement

can be given. Another circumstances under Sub-clause 4 of Section 206 of

the Act is when the Police officer has reason to believe that the driver of a

motor vehicle has committed an offence under any of the Sections 183, 184,

185, 189, 190, 194 C, 194 D, or 194 E, of the M.V.Act, the licence can be

seized by the Police Officer. The power vested under Section 206 for seizure

of the licence is not automatic. Only when the Police Officer records the

reasons to believe that any of the circumstances as narrated in Section 206 is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:12/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

attracted, he can exercise such a power. The word “reason to believe” as

defined under Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

“Section 26 of The Indian Penal Code

26. “Reason to believe”.—A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.

19. The word “reason to believe” excludes mere suspicion or doubt.

The word believe is very much stronger word than suspect and involves the

necessity of showing the circumstances that a reasonable man must have felt

convinced his mind, that circumstances exists to proceed under section 206

of the M.V. Act. “Reason to believe” means belief which a reasonable man

will entertain on the facts before him and it contemplates an objective based

on the independent care and deliberation and the same must be based on the

good faith. In substance, the reason to believe means that a person must

have a reason to believe if the circumstances are such that reasonable man

would, by probable reasoning conclude or infer regarding the nature of the

thing concerned. Such circumstances need not necessarily be capable of

absolute conviction or inference but it sufficient such circumstances are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:13/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

creating a cause to believe by chain of probable reasoning leading to the

conclusion or inference about the nature of the thing.

20. In such a view of the matter, even to exercise power under Section

206 of the Act, the Officer exercising the power has to record reasons in

writing considering the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The

seizure of the licence is not automatic. Without recording reasons obtaining

to the facts and circumstances of the particular case such power cannot be

exercised mechanically. With regard to exercise the power under section 19

of the Act by the RTA, it is relevant to note that before exercising such an

action, notice of opportunity to be given to the holder of licence. Sub-

clause 2 of Section 19 makes it very clear that only the order under sub-

clause 1 or Sub-clause 1-A is made, the holder of driving licence shall

forthwith surrender his licence to the Licensing Authority making the order,

if the driving licence is not already ordinarily surrendered.

21. In such a view of the matter, this court is of the view that seizure

of the licence to take action under Section 19 of the Act, is not mandatory.

Irrespective of licence being surrendered or produced before the authorities,

the action can be initiated by the authorities, under Section 19 of the Act, on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:14/16 Writ Petition No.1345 of 2023

the report submitted by the police. Therefore, this Court is of the view that

merely on the basis of the FIR is registered particularly in the other IPC

offences, the Police Officer cannot have power to seize the licence. If at all

any action is contemplated under Section 19 of the Act, they may forward a

report to the concerned RTA to take action, under Section 19 of the Act.

On such report, if the licensing authority is satisfied with any of the

contingencies in clauses 1(a) to (h) of Section 19 and sub-clause 1A of the

Act and after giving an opportunity to the holder of the licence, may pass an

order, as contemplated in Section 19 of the Act.

22. Accordingly this Court hold that the seizure of the licence in the

given case is not valid in the eye of law and the first respondent is directed

to return the licence, within one week, from the date of receipt of copy of