Madras High Court
C.Chezhil vs The Regional Transport Officer on 26 August, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C. Saravanan
W.P.(MD) No.23191 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.23191 of 2025
C.Chezhil ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Transport Officer,
The Regional Transport Office,
Srirangam, Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Manikandam Police Station,
Trichy District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to
return the petitioner's driving license bearing D.L.No.TN48 20080001545
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam
For R1 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.M.Vaikam Karunanidhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
****
_____________
Page No. 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:58 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.23191 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner was involved in a road accident on 30.07.2025,
pursuant to which an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner in Crime
No.377 of 2025 by the second respondent, for offences under Sections
281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Following the
incident, the petitioner's driving licence was seized by the second
respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on several decisions
of this Court, including the judgment in P.Sethuraman vs. The
Licensing Authority, 2010 (2) MLJ 778, which has been followed in
subsequent cases.
3. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader for the
first respondent submitted that a show cause notice dated 13.08.2025 was
issued by the first respondent and the same was received by the petitioner
on 20.08.2025. In P.Sethuraman's case (cited supra), this Court held as
follows:-
''11. The respondent has, in the impugned order,
preconcluded the issue that the appellant is guilty of rash and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:58 pm )
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 of mind.''
4. The aforesaid view has been consistently followed by this Court
in several subsequent decisions, including:-
(i) P.Mahalingam vs. The Regional Transport Officer and
Licensing Authority and another [W.P.(MD)No. 5341 of 2022, decided
on 25.03.2022]; and
(ii) M.Saravanan vs. The Regional Transport Officer,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and another [W.P.(MD)No.16452
of 2025, decided on 20.06.2025].
5. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the first
respondent to return the petitioner's driving licence upon adjudication of
the show cause notice dated 13.08.2025. The said show cause notice shall
be adjudicated within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:58 pm )
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
26.08.2025
smn2
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
To
1.The Regional Transport Officer,
The Regional Transport Office,
Srirangam, Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Manikandam Police Station,
Trichy District.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:58 pm )
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
26.08.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:58 pm )
