Madras High Court
G.Ravi vs The Regional Transport Officer on 10 September, 2024
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P(MD)No.21547 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P(MD)No.21547 of 2024
G.Ravi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Transport Officer,
The Regional Transport Office (North),
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Traffic Investigation Wing Police Station-II,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent
to return the petitioner's driving license bearing D.L.No.TN 60-19940001421
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam
For R-1 : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan
Government Advocate
For R-2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P(MD)No.21547 of 2024
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus
directing the first respondent to return the driving license bearing D.L.No.TN
60-19940001421 forthwith.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 15.08.2024,
the bus, driven by the petitioner herein, was involved in a road traffic accident
resulting in death of a person. It is submitted that criminal case was registered
against the petitioner in Crime No.209 of 2024 by the second respondent police
for offences under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023. Thereafter, on 16.08.2024, the petitioner was directed to produce
the bus for inspection before the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Based on which, his
driving license was seized and was kept by the first respondent during the stage
of investigation though the petitioner was not convicted. The first respondent
has no power to seize his driving license. On 21.08.2024, the petitioner
approached the office of the first respondent and submitted a representation for
return of his driving license, which is stated to be pending. Hence, the present
writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. It is submitted by both the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as
the respondent that the issue stands covered 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. It may be relevant to refer to the
following portions of the said judgment, which reads 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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-
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.'
4. In the case on hand, even without passing any order for cancellation or
suspension or revocation of the licence, the second respondent has seized the
driving licence of the petitioner. The petitioner is admittedly, employed as
Driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited. He has
to eke out his livelihood and therefore, without driving licence, he cannot
continue his duty as a Driver with Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Limited. Since no final order has been passed under Section 19 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Motor Vehicles Act, the licence of the petitioner will have to be necessarily
returned back to the petitioner by the first respondent.
5. This Court finds that the retention of the license is illegal, in view of
the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (supra). Hence, the first
respondent is directed to return the driving license of the petitioner bearing
D.L.No.TN 60-19940001421 to the petitioner, within a period of one week
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
10.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
BTR
To
1.The Regional Transport Officer,
The Regional Transport Office (North),
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Inspector of Police,
Traffic Investigation Wing Police Station-II,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
BTR
10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
