A.S.Kumar vs Inspector Of Police
2025 Latest Caselaw 6045 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6045 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 August, 2025

Madras High Court

A.S.Kumar vs Inspector Of Police on 25 August, 2025

                                                                                       WP No. 32232 of 2025



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 25-08-2025

                                                         CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

                                               WP No. 32232 of 2025

                1. A.S.Kumar
                S/o.Sadayapethar, 50-a, Navithankottai,
                Mettur Dam, Salem District

                                                                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                              Vs

                1. Inspector Of Police
                Annur Police Station, Coimbatore
                District

                2.The Licensing Authority Cum
                Regional Transport Officer,
                Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District

                                                                                       Respondent(s)
                PRAYER
                    Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

                for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to return

                the original driving licence (DL.No.TN27-Y-19970000335) to the petitioner

                forthwith


                                                               1



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 06:59:01 pm )
                                                                                             WP No. 32232 of 2025




                                  For Petitioner(s):         Mr.K.Hariharan
                                                             H.Vallabh Narayan

                                  For Respondent:             Dr.C.E.Pratap, GA[Crl.Side]
                                                             for R1
                                                             Mrs.C.Meeera Arumugam, AGP
                                                             for R2

                                                               ORDER

(1) M\Dr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] accepts notice on

st behalf of the 1 respondent and Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam, learned Additional

nd Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the 2 respondent. With the

consent of the learned counsels on either side, the main writ petition is taken

up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

nd (2) The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the 2 respondent to

return the original driving licence of the petitioner forthwith.

(3) The petitioner is a driver of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. While

so, on 17.07.2025, when the petitioner was driving the Transport Corporation

Bus, a major accident occurred in which a motorcyclist died. The petitioner

st states that the 1 respondent therefore registered a criminal case in

Cr.No.360/2025 for the offences under Sections 106[1] and 281 of BNS. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 06:59:01 pm )

petitioner further states that the 1st respondent while registering the FIR,

collected the driving licence of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the

2nd respondent to take action for cancellation of the driving licence. The

petitioner further states that as the petitioner's original licence was seized by

the 1st respondent, the Management of the Transport Corporation refused to

give the petitioner any duty and therefore, the petitioner was left without

employment. The petitioner, under the aforesaid circumstances, having no

alternate remedy, filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under identical facts, this

Court, relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, allowed a

writ petition in WP.No.24198/2025 vide order dated 07.07.2025.

(5) Heard the learned counsels on either side and also perused the materials

placed on record.

(6) As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the

identical facts, this Court in WP.No.24198/2025 has held as follows:-

''5.The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the

Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 06:59:01 pm )

P.Sethuraman Vs. The Licensing Authority, the Regional

Transport Office, Dindigul in WA[MD].No.364/2009

dated 30.07.2009 submitted that unless the concerned

individual was convicted by the Criminal Court, the

respondent had no right to seize the original driving

licence. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted

hereunder:-

''11.The respondent has, in the impugned order, preconcluded the issue that the appellant is guilty of rash and negligent driving, even before the Criminal Court or the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal went into the issue. Even to invoke Section 19[1][c], it is necessary to show that the Motor Vehicle is used in the commission of a cognizable offence. Without making a specific averment regarding the same, the order suspending the Driving Licence cannot be taken to be passed after due application in mind.

12.In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to return Driving Licence of the appellant, within a week of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it shall not preclude the respondent from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies specified in Clauses [a] to [h] of Section 19[1] of the Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of Section 19[1][f] are violated. No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 06:59:01 pm )

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.''

6.I am of the view that the aforesaid judgment

applies to the facts of the present case. Therefore, a

direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to return the

driving licence of the appellant within a period of one week

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it

shall not preclude the respondent from initiating any

action, if any of the contingencies specified in Clauses [a]

to [h] of Section 19[1] of the Act, arises later or if any of

the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in

pursuance of Section 19[1][f] are violated.'' nd (7) Following the aforesaid order, a direction is issued to the 2 respondent

herein to return the petitioner's original driving licence within a period of one

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

preclude the respondent from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies

specified in Clauses [a] to [h] of Section 19[1] of the Act, arises later or if any

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

19[1][f] are violated.