Madras High Court

Tharmaraj vs The Regional Transport Officer on 10 March, 2023

                                                                                     W.P.(MD) No.5072 of 2023



                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 10.03.2023

                                                          CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                                W.P.(MD) No.5072 of 2023
                                                          and
                                               W.M.P.(MD) No.4766 of 2023

                     Tharmaraj                                                .. Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                     1.The Regional Transport Officer,
                       Regional Transport Office,
                       Pudukottai District.

                     2.The Inspector of Police,
                       Thirumayam Police Station,
                       Pudukottai District.                                   .. Respondents


                     Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

                     praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to

                     return       back   the   original   driving   license     of      the     petitioner

                     (TN-47-Z-20100000067) to him forthwith and within a time frame that

                     may be fixed by this Court.




                     ___________
                     Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     W.P.(MD) No.5072 of 2023




                                        For Petitioner      :      Mr.R.Maheswaran

                                        For R1              :      Mr.T.Amjadkhan
                                                                   Government Advocate

                                        For R2              :      Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
                                                                   Government Advocate


                                                                ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus

to direct the first respondent to return the petitioner's original driving

license bearing TN-47-Z-20100000067 forthwith.

2. Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for

the first respondent and Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government

Advocate takes notice for the second respondent.

3. The question that falls for consideration in this petition is as to

whether the 1st respondent has power to impound the driving licence of a

person involved in a road traffic accident.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5072 of 2023

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

25.01.2023, the bus, driven by the petitioner herein, was involved in a

road traffic accident resulting in death of persons in the two wheeler.

Pursuant to which, an FIR in Crime No.33 of 2023 came to be registered

by the second respondent/Police for offences under Sections 279 and

304(A) IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner's license was seized by the second

respondent and the same was handed over to the first respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that till

date, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner

was issued with proceedings dated 30.01.2023 temporarily suspending

him for a period of 30 days and the petitioner has submitted his

representation dated 06.02.2023 not to disqualify his driving licence and

the same is pending consideration. It is further submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the question that is raised in this Writ

Petition stands covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in

W.A.No.176 of 2009 and the said judgment is being followed

consistently by this Court.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5072 of 2023

6. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to the following

portions of the said judgment, which read as under:

"6.Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, empowers the Licensing Authority to disqualify a person for holding or obtaining any driving licence for a specified period or to revoke any such licence. Similarly, a Court which convicts a person for an offence under the Act, is empowered by Section 20(1) to disqualify such person from holding a driving licence for a specific period. Section 21 makes a driving licence become suspended, if the holder of the licence had been previously convicted of an offence punishable under Section 184 and a case had been registered against him on the allegation of causing the death or grievous injury to one or more persons by dangerous driving. Section 22 empowers the Court to cancel or suspend the driving licence, upon conviction of a person for an offence under Section 184.

7.Obviously, Sections 20 and 22 are not applicable to the case on hand, since the action impugned in the writ petition did not arise out of the disqualification ordered by a Court. There is no allegation that the appellant was previously convicted for an offence under Section 184. Therefore, Section 21 also has no application to the case on hand. Consequently, the only provision to which the respondent could restore to, is Section 19.

8.Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as follows:-

“19.Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such lince.

(1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he-

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5072 of 2023

(a) is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard; or

(b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or

(d) has by his previous conduct as driver of a motor vehicle shown that his driving is likely to be attended with danger to the public; or

(e) has obtained any driving licence or a licence to drive a particular class or description of motor vehicle by fraud or misrepresentation; or

(f) has committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, having regard to the objects of this Act; or

(g) has failed to submit to, or has not passed, the tests referred to in the proviso to sub- section (3) of section 22; or

(h) being a person under the age of eighteen years who has been granted a learner’s licence or a driving licence with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the holder of the licence and has ceased to be in such care, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order-

(i) disqualifying that person for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence; or

(ii) revoke any such licence.

(2) Where an order under sub-section (1) is made, the holder of a driving licence shall

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5072 of 2023

forthwith surrender his driving licence to the licensing authority making the order, if the driving licence has not already been surrendered, and the licensing authority shall,-

(a) if the driving licence is a driving licence issued under this Act, keep it until the disqualification has expired or has been removed; or

(b) if it is not a driving licence issued under this Act, endorse the disqualification upon it and send it to the licensing authority by which it was issued; or

(c) in the case of revocation of any licence, endorse the revocation upon it and if it is not the authority which issued the same, intimate the fact of revocation to the authority which issued that licence:

Provided that where the driving licence of a person authorises him to drive more than one class or description of motor vehicles and the order, made under sub-section (1), disqualifies him from driving any specified class or description of motor vehicles, the licensing authority shall endorse the disqualification upon the driving licence and return the same to the holder.

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order made by a licensing authority under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, appeal to the prescribed authority, and such appellate authority shall give notice to the licensing authority and hear either party if so required by that party and may pass such order as it thinks fit and an order passed by any such appellate authority shall be final.”

9.A bare reading of Section 19(1) shows that the Licensing Authority has the power to revoke any licence

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5072 of 2023

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.

10.But in the case on hand, the licence of the appellant has been impounded or retained by the respondent, immediately after the accident on 18.3.2009. Admittedly, the show cause notice was issued only on 28.4.2009. Therefore, it is clear that the driving licence was retained, both without an order in writing and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. This is a clear violation of the provisions of the statute and hence the order of the learned Judge, dismissing the writ petition deserves to be set aside.'

7. Furthermore, it may also be useful to refer to the order of this

Court in W.P.(MD) No.5635 of 2021, wherein this Court after holding

that impounding of licence in similar circumstances is unsustainable,

held as follows:

“.....That apart when neither the Criminal Court nor the Claims Tribunal have pronounced on the guilt of the petitioner, the second respondent has chosen to prejudge the issue. The petitioner was also not given any opportunity of personal hearing, though it is specifically contemplated by Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5072 of 2023

8. This Court finds that issuance of show cause notice after

impounding the licence was held to be impermissible by the Division

Bench of this Court. In the case on hand, till date no show cause notice

was issued to the petitioner. In view of the same, the 1st respondent is

directed to return the driving licence of the petitioner, within a week

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it shall not

preclude the 1st respondent from proceeding further with the proceedings

already initiated, if any of the contingencies specified in Clauses (a) to

(h) of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has arisen or if any

of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of