Madras High Court
K. Perumal vs The Regional Transport Officer on 8 May, 2024
W.P(MD) No.11130 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :08.05.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P(MD)No.11130 of 2024
K. Perumal ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Regional Transport Officer
The Regional Transport Office
Thirumangalam
Madurai District
2. The Inspector of Police
Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station
Madurai District ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing
the first respondent to return the driving license of the petitioner
bearing D.L. No.60- 19940002352 forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr. V.R.Arunkumar
For R1 : Mr.M.Prakash
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.11130 of 2024
ORDER
The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of
Mandamus directing the first respondent to return the driving license
of the petitioner bearing D.L. No.60- 19940002352 forthwith.
2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for
final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.04.2024 he drove a
bus bearing Reg. No.TN 58 N 2283 between Madurai and
Sankarankovil and when he was going near Rajapalayam-
Thirumangalam Road at about 2.40 pm., when he was near Sedapatti
Vilakku he dashed against the two wheeler and the rider of the two
wheeler fell down and sustained grievous injuries and later he died.
Hence a case came to be registered in Crime No.77 of 2024 for the
offence under Section 304(A) of IPC by the second respondent police.
Thereafter the second respondent police seized the driving license of
the petitioner and handed over the same to the Motor Vehicle
Inspector who, in turn gave it to the first respondent. Thereafter the
petitioner herein had approached the first respondent for return of his
driving license, since no action has been taken the present petition
has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
first respondent opposed to grant relief to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced
copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD) No.2111 of 2021
stating that this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court.
6. This Court has perused the order. On perusal it is observed
that this Court in similar kind of petition has passed the following
order and this case is covered by the judgment. This Court in the said
case has held as follows:
4.However, the issue on hand is squarely covered by
the order dated 22.06.2009 made in W.A.(MD)No.175 of 2009
(S.Murugesan Vs. The Licensing Authority/Regional Transport
Officer). The Hon'ble Division Bench held as follows:-
“5.Therefore the question that falls for consideration in
this appeal is as to whether the respondent has a power to
impound the driving license of a person involved in a road
traffic accident.
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 license. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
driving license for a specified period. Section 21 makes a
driving license become suspended, if the holder of the license
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 of 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 resort 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 licence . -
(1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the
holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that
he-
(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 ; or
(c) is using or has used a motor vehicle in the
commission of a cognizable offence ; 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 subsection
(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 license or
disqualify a person for a specified period from holding or
obtaining a driving license, 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 18.03.20209. Admittedly,
the show cause notice was issued only on 28.04.2009.
Therefore, it is clear that the driving lice6nce 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the learned Judge, dismissing the writ petition deserves to
be set aside.
11.Accordingly, 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
proceeding further with the proceedings already initiated, if
any of the contingencies specified in Clauses (a) to (h) of
Section 19(i) of the Act, has arisen or if any of the Rules as
prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of
Section 19(1)(f) are violated.”
7. In view of the same and this case is covered by the above said
decision, this Writ Petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to
return the petition mentioned driving license to the petitioner forthwith and
without any delay. . No costs.
08.05.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Regional Transport Officer
The Regional Transport Office
Thirumangalam
Madurai District
2. The Inspector of Police
Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station
Madurai District
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
08.05.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
