Madras High Court
J.Balaji vs The Regional Transport Officer on 12 July, 2023
W.P.No.20332 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P No.20332 of 2023
J.Balaji ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Transport Officer
Kallakurichi
Kallalkurichi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Chinna Salem Police Station
Kallakurichi. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to return the
original driving licence No.TN 27Z19950001956 of the petitioner to him.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Naveen Kumar
Government Advocate
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20332 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to return the
original driving licence No.TN 27Z19950001956 of the petitioner which has
been seized by the 2nd respondent and sent to the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited, Salem. While petitioner was driving the corporation bus
on 14.06.2023, there was a fatal accident. Therefore, an FIR was registered
against the petitioner in Crime No.322 of 2023 under Sections 279, 337 and
304(A) of IPC. The 2nd respondent, who is investigating the crime seized the
driving licence of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the 1 st respondent.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of several requests made
by him to the 1st respondent, he failed to return the same to the petitioner. It is
also the case of the petitioner that accident had taken place only due to the
fault of the rider of the two wheeler. There was no negligence on the part of
the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
not convicted by any Criminal Court and FIR filed against him is under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20332 of 2023
investigation. Therefore, the respondents cannot come to the conclusion with
regard to the guilt of the petitioner when investigation is pending. It is also not
a case of the respondent that the petitioner has committed any offence
violating any other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the fact
that the petitioner's driving licence is with the 1st respondent, the petitioner is
unable to attend his duty from 15.06.2023. As a consequent, the petitioner is
put to irreparable loss. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that if ultimately during investigation it is found that the petitioner has not
committed any offence or after trial the petitioner is acquitted, the loss
suffered by the petitioner due to seizure of driving licence cannot be
compensated.
4. Hence, a direction may be issued to the 1st respondent to handover the
driving licence to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
relied upon the judgment in the case of P.Sethuram Vs The Licensing
Authority, the Regional Transport Officer, the Regional Transport Officer,
Dindigul reported in 2010 Writ L.R.100.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20332 of 2023
5. In P.Sethuram's case cited by the petitioner, an order passed by the
Regional Transport Officer suspending the licence of the petitioner was
challenged. This Court after referring Section 19 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988
observes 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
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 a 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20332 of 2023
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,
preconcluded 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 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.No.20332 of 2023
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”.
6. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the
abovesaid case is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The
licence has been seized and forwarded to the 1st respondent and the same has
not been handed over to the petitioner in spite of several requests made by
him. The accident had taken place on 15.06.2023. Therefore, even after lapse
of three weeks, the 1st respondent has not issued any notice under Section
19(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In these circumstances, the 1st respondent
is not justified in keeping the driving licence of the petitioner, without any
justifiable cause. The action of the 1st respondent would amount to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20332 of 2023
impounding the licence even without hearing the petitioner.
7. Therefore, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the 1 st
respondent to hand over the driving licence of the petitioner immediately on
receipt of this order. However, the order passed by this Court shall not
preclude the 1st respondent from initiating any action under Section 19(1) of
the Act r/w Rule 21 Central Motor Vehicles Rules, by following procedure
contemplated under law.
8. With the above observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No
costs.
12.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
nr
Note:Issue order copy on 14.07.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20332 of 2023
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nr
To
1.The Regional Transport Officer
Kallakurichi
Kallalkurichi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Chinna Salem Police Station
Kallakurichi.
W.P No.20332 of 2023
12.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
