Madras High Court
P. Baskaran vs The Regional Transport Authority on 3 March, 2023
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 3/3/2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.6664 and 6666 of 2023
P. Baskaran ... Petitioner
Vs
The Regional Transport Authority
Office of the Regional Transport Authority
Thiruvallur 602 001. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
records pertaining to the order dated 6/2/2023 issued by the respondent in
Show Cause No.TN-20-2022/391, quash the same and consequently, direct
the respondent to return the original license of the petitioner bearing
No.TN23Z19930001428 without any endorsement.
For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Krishnasamy
For respondent ... Mr.S.Rajesh
Government Advocate
------
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:1/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order, dated 6/2/2023
issued by the respondent in Show Cause No.TN-20-2022/391, and
consequently, direct the respondent to return the original license of the
petitioner bearing No.TN23Z19930001428 without any endorsement.
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:-
The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on 11/9/2007. On
12/12/2022, when the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No.TN-21-N-
1884, between Tiruttani to Vellore, a two-wheeler bearing Registration
No.TN-18-BH-2026, dashed the bus and caused accident. R.K.Pet Police
Station, Thiruvallur District, registered a F.I.R in Crime No.366 on
12/12/2022, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Based
on the First Information Report, vide, order, dated 13/12/2022, the petitioner
was suspended from the service. By impugned order, dated 6/2/2023,
suspended the license of the petitioner from 12/2/2023 to 11/6/2023,
invoking Section 19 (1) (d) & (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence the
petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition praying for the
relief as stated therein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:2/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
3. Heard Mr.R.Krishnasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the
respondent.
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
respondent. The 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 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 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. Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent would submit that in view of sub-clause (4) to Section 206 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:3/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
(1-A) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, 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 Police and he appears to have forwarded the same to the
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.6594 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)
(C) which clearly states that when the vehicle is used and a cognizable
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.6594 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 authority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:6/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
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 respondent
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:7/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
his possession of or the presence in the vehicle of such
mark or document.
(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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:8/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
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 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:9/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
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.
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:10/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
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,
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:11/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
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 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:12/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:13/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:14/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
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
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 respondent is directed to
return the licence, within one week, from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. It is well open to the respondent to send a report to the RTA for
taking appropriate action. The RTA may after providing an opportunity to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:15/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
the petitioner may proceed under Section 19 of the M.V. Act and to pass an
order on merits.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
mvs.
23. In such a view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
3/3/2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mvs.
To
The Regional Transport Authority
Office of the Regional Transport Authority
Thiruvallur 602 001.
W.P.No.6594 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:16/16
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:17/16
