Madras High Court
R.Thangakodi vs The Regional Transport Officer on 18 October, 2024
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P.(MD).No.24525 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.(MD).No.24525 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.20860 of 2024
R.Thangakodi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Transport Officer,
Transport Department,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Motor Vehicle Inspector,
Regional Transport Office,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Sattur Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.277/2024). ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to
forthwith return the petitioner's original driving license bearing DL.No.
TN-58-20080012295 to the petitioner within a time limit that may be fixed by
this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.24525 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
For R-1 : Mr.R.Sureshkumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R-2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus directing the first
respondent to return the original driving license of the petitioner bearing
DL.No.TN-58-20080012295 forthwith.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on
15.09.2024, the bus, driven by the petitioner herein, was involved in a road
traffic accident resulting in death of a person. Pursuant to which, an FIR in
Crime No.277 of 2024 came to be registered by the third respondent Police for
offences under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS. Thereafter, the petitioner's
driving license was seized by the third respondent and handed over to the first
respondent. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.09.2024
for return of his driving license. Since the same was not considered, the present
Writ Petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
was not given any show cause notice nor any enquiry conducted.
4. It is submitted by both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the
learned counsel for the respondents that the short question that arises for
consideration in this petition is as to whether the first respondent has power to
impound the driving licence of a person involved in a road traffic accident and
the same stands resolved by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.176 of 2009 and the said judgment is being followed
consistently by this Court. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted
hereunder:
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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-
(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
(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
(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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
5. This Court finds that inasmuch as admittedly neither any show cause
notice nor an enquiry having been made, the retention of the license is illegal,
in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (supra). Hence, the
first respondent is directed to return the driving licence of the petitioner, within
a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the
petitioner may co-operate with the proceedings already initiated, which was
readily agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. This Writ Petition is allowed on the above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
18.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Regional Transport Officer,
Transport Department,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Motor Vehicle Inspector,
Regional Transport Office,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Sattur Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Lm
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
