Madras High Court
P.Selvakumar vs The Regional Transport Officer on 24 April, 2025
W.P.(MD).No.11453 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.11453 of 2025
and
W.P.(MD)No.8488 of 2025
P.Selvakumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Regional Transport Officer,
The Regional Transport Office,
Sivagangai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
S.V. Mangalam Police Station,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the 1st
respondent relating to his impugned order dated 02.04.25 passed in Show
Cause No. TN63/2025/434, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st
Respondent to return petitioner's driving license bearing D.L.No. TN
57-20070010865 without any remarks, award cost.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan (R1)
Additional Government Pleader
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:56:24 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.11453 of 2025
Mr.K.Gnanasekaran (R2)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed as against the impugned orders passed by the
Regional Transport Officer / Licensing Authority concerned, in and by which,
the driving licence of the petitioner was suspended under Section 19(1)
(d)&(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Rule 21 of the Central Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1989.
2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is
working as Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. While he
was on duty as Driver, accident had occurred due to which, a case was
registered as against the petitioner under Sections 281 and 106 (1) of BNS,
2023 and the respondent Police seized the driving license of the petitioner
without giving any show cause to the petitioner and further forwarded the
seized license to the Regional Transport Officers concerned, who in turn, has
suspended the driving license of the petitioner. The case registered as against
the petitioner is under investigation and not even charge sheet has been filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:56:24 pm )
so far. While so, before even any decision is taken by the trial Court, the
authorities came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty for the offences
committed. The learned Counsel further submit that the Regional Transport
Officer cannot act as a pre-judge to take decision on the guilt even before
filing of charge sheet before the Court concerned and without even any
materials. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
Transport Authority submits that the petitioner is accused of the offence under
Sections 281 and 106 (1) of BNS, 2023 and it is a cognizable offence. If any
cognizable offence is committed, the authority after giving reasonable
opportunity to the person concerned is empowered to suspend the license as
per Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1981 read with Rule 21 of the
Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Accordingly the petitioner was issued
with show cause notice and being not satisfied with the reply given by the
petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed. Therefore, there is no
reason to interfere with the impugned order.
4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the
materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:56:24 pm )
5.The petitioner is the Driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation. While he was on duty in driving the bus, accident had occurred
and a case was registered as against the petitioner under Sections 281 and 106
(1) of BNS, 2023 and subsequently his driving licence was suspended for a
temporary period. The grievance of the petitioner is that before filing of any
final report as against the petitioner, the authorities pre-judged that the
petitioner has committed the offence and therefore, he is before this Court.
6.A Division Bench of this Court in [P.Sethuraman Vs. The Licensing
Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport
Officer, Dindigul] in 2010 Writ Law reporter 100 has held as under:
“8. 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.
9. But in the case on hand, the licence of the appellant was
impounded or retained by the police immediately after the
accident. Thereafter, the respondent issued the show cause
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:56:24 pm )
notice under Section 19(1) of the Act, after getting a report from
the police. Therefore the impounding of the licence has actually
preceded the issue of show cause notice.”
7.A similar view has been taken by another Division Bench in
S.Murugan Vs Licensing Authority [WA(MD)No.176 of 2009 dated
22.06.2009 Madurai Bench of Madras High Court]. However a Division
Bench of this Court in S.Krishnan Vs The Licensing Authority [in
WA(MD)No.783 of 2008] has held as follows:
“Section 19 itself gives the 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 Section19(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.”
8.Following the above cited judgments, a single judge of this Court in
WP No.11 of 2023 has discussed the issue elaborately. The seizure power of
the police under Section 206 of the Act is limited only in circumstances that if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:56:24 pm )
the offence has been committed any of the Sections under Sections 183, 184,
185, 189, 190, 194 (c) 194(d) and 194(e) under Sub Section 4 of Section 206
of the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore, held that the power of seizure vested
with the police under Section 206 is not automatic. The officer has to record
the reasons to believe any of the circumstances narrated under Section 206 as
directed he can exercise such power. Recording so this Court has held as
under :
“19. In such a view of the matter, this court is of the view that
seizure of the licence to take action under section 19 is not a
mandatory. Irrespective of licence being surrendered or
produced before the authorities, the action can be initiated by
the authorities under Section 19 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,
they may forward a report to the concerned RTA to take action
under Section 19 of the Act. On such report the licensing
authority is satisfied 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.
20. Accordingly this Court hold that the seizure of the licence in
the given case is not valid in the eye of law and the 2nd
Respondent is directed to return the licence within one week
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:56:24 pm )
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is well open to
the 1st Respondent to send a report to the RTA for taking
appropriate action. The RTA may after providing opportunity to
the petitioner
may proceed under Section 19 of the M.V. Act and to pass an
order on merits.”
9.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the
respondent police cannot seize the driving license. Further it is not for the
Regional Transport Authority to pre-judge the guilt of the petitioner, even
before filing of the final report by the respondent Police in the criminal case
registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in
the following terms:
i. The impugned order is set aside.
ii.The respondent RTO 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.
iii.It is open to the respondent Police to forward the relevant materials
to the RTO after filing of the final report in the criminal case registered
against the petitioner.
iv. On receipt of any such materials from the respondent Police, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:56:24 pm )
respondent RTO shall take appropriate action as stipulated under Section 19
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
sm
Note: Issue order copy on 29.04.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:56:24 pm )
TO:-
1. The Regional Transport Officer,
The Regional Transport Office,
Sivagangai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
S.V. Mangalam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:56:24 pm )
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
sm
Order made in
Dated:
24.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:56:24 pm )
