Madras High Court
P.Nagarajan vs The Regional Transport Officer on 19 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.7597 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.7597 of 2025
P.Nagarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Transport Officer,
The Regional Transport Office,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kariapatti Police Station,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to
return the driving License of the petitioner bearing
D.L.No.TN67-19990000553 forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam
For R1 : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:55 pm )
1/10
W.P.(MD)No.7597 of 2025
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus, directing the
first respondent to return the original driving license of the petitioner
bearing No.TN67-19990000553 forthwith.
2. The petitioner's case is that an F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.
65 of 2025 against him for the offences under Sections 281 and 106(1) of
the B.N.S., 2023, following an accident caused by him on 25.02.2025
while driving a bus with Registration No.TN-67-N-1194. The victim of
the accident later succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. On
26.02.2025, the petitioner's driving licence was seized by the second
respondent and handed over to the first respondent. The petitioner,
aggrieved by this action, has filed the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was neither given any show cause notice nor any enquiry was
conducted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:55 pm )
4. It is submitted by both the learned counsel for the petitioner, as
well the learned Government Advocates appearing on behalf of 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:55 pm )
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 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 licence.—(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:55 pm )
(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 ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:55 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:55 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:55 pm )
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.''
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 Hon'ble 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 Government Advocates 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:55 pm )
7. This Writ Petition is allowed on the above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
19.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
smn2
To
1.The Regional Transport Officer,
The Regional Transport Office,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kariapatti Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:55 pm )
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
smn2
19.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:55 pm )
