R.Bakthavachalam v. The Transport Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition No.27474 of 2017 R.Bakthavachalam .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Licensing Authority Regional Transport Officer Pudukottai.
3.The Inspector of Police Keeranur Pudukottai District.
4.The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Erode Region Erode District.
.. Respondents PRAYER:
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to return the driving license of the petitioner bearing No.TN 36 19870000467 which was seized in connection with the case in Crime No.280/2017 on the file of the 3rd respondent within the time fixed.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.P.V.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader For R1 to R3 Mr.P.Kannan Kumar, standing counsel for R4
O R D E R
Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. Mr.P.Kannan Kumar,
learned standing counsel takes notice for the fourth respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus, directing the second respondent to return the petitioner's driving license bearing No. TN 36 19870000467.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. It is stated that the petitioner's driving licence was seized, in pursuant to an accident taken place on 05.09.2017 and followed by the registration of FIR in Crime No.280 of 2017 under Sections 279 and 304 A of IPC. Now the petitioner seeks for return of the driving licence by contending that the second respondent is not entitled to seize and retain the driving licence, simply because a criminal case is filed against the petitioner and the same is pending.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 (P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Dindigul) and a single Judge decision made in W.P.No.16958/2013 dated 01.07.2013 reported in 2013 Writ L.R.843 (S.Duraivelu vs. The Regional Transport Officer, West Thambaram, Chennai & 2 others), wherein, this Court has considered a similar issue and found that even the suspension of the license on the ground that a criminal case is pending, is erroneous. I myself followed the above decisions in similar cases, wherein licence was suspended. Hence, I do not think that the first respondent is justified in retaining the driving license of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the driving license of the petitioner immediately on receipt of a copy of this order. However, it shall not preclude the respondents from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies specified in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of Section 19(1)(f) of the Act, are violated. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
mk To 1.The Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Licensing Authority Regional Transport Officer Pudukottai.
3.The Inspector of Police Keeranur Pudukottai District.
4.The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Erode Region Erode District.
+1cc to Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, Advocate Sr. 75588 W.P.No.27474 of 2017 AR(IV) VR(30/10/2017)