Madras High Court
P.Kumar vs The Regional Transport Officer on 24 July, 2023
W.P.No.21903 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :24.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P No.21903 of 2023
P.Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Transport Officer,
Tirupur(South), Tirupur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kankeyam Police station,
Kangeyam,Tirupur District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent herein to return
the petitioner's Driving Licence bearing DL No.TN-33-Y-19940001373
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to return his
Driving Licence bearing DL.No.TN-33-Y- 19940001373.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21903 of 2023
2. According to the petitioner, he is working as a Driver in Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation, Kovai Division, Tirupur Region, Kangeyam
Branch. On 09.07.2023, when he was driving the bus bearing Registration
No.TN-33-N-2651 from Kangeyam Town Bus Station to Tirupur, a motor
cycle which was driven in the rash and negligent manner hit the bus and as a
result both the rider and the pillion rider received fatal injury and died on the
spot.
3. In connection with the accident, the second respondent registered a
criminal case in Crime No. 85 of 2023 under Section 279, 337 & 304(A) of
IPC against the petitioner and investigation is pending. On the very same day,
the second respondent seized the petitioner's driving licence and forwarded the
same to the first respondent for taking necessary action.
4. The petitioner made a request to the first respondent to return his
driving licence on 11.07.2023. Even after the receipt of the petitioner's
representation, the original driving licence has not been returned to him.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21903 of 2023
5.Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice
for the respondents, on instructions submits that the first respondent has not
received any request from the petitioner, seeking return of driving licence.
6. The first respondent is not entitled to retain the driving licence, unless
he chooses to proceed under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
r/w Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The said position was
authoritatively held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.
Sethuram Vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer,
The Regional Transport Office, Dindigul, reported in 2010 Writ L.R.100,
wherein it was held that the licensing authority is not entitled to pre-conclude
the issue and come to a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of rash and
negligent driving even before the Criminal Court or Motor Accident Tribunal
gives a formal finding to that effect. The relevant portion of the decision of the
Hon'ble Division Bench reads thus:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21903 of 2023
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 o 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 Clause (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 Clause (a) to (h) of Section 19(1), under which the
case of the appellant would fall.
11. The respondent has, in the impugned order,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21903 of 2023
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 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.”
7. A reading of above judgment by Division Bench would suggest the 1st
respondent cannot pre conclude the issue with regard to guilt of petitioner
when investigation is pending and when there is no finding by Criminal Court
or Motor Vehicles Tribunal. Unless 1st respondent passess an order against
petitioner for suspension of driving license on the grounds enumerated under
law, that too after hearing him, it is not open to him to refuse return of driving
license.
8.Therefore, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to
the first respondent, seeking return of his driving licence. The first respondent
is directed to return the driving licence on receipt of the return request by the
petitioner. This order will not come in the way of first respondent taking any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21903 of 2023
action as per Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 21 of
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
9. With these clarifications, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
24.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
nti
Note: Issue order copy on 25.07.2023
To
1.The Regional Transport Officer,
Tirupur(South), Tirupur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kankeyam Police station,
Kangeyam,Tirupur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21903 of 2023
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nti
W.P No.21903 of 2023
24.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
