M.Thiyagarajan, v. The Regional Transport Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition No.2672 of 2018 and WMP.No.3304 of 2018 M.Thiyagarajan S/o.R.Manickam .. Petitioner Vs.
1.
The Regional Transport Officer Arur (Via & Post) Dharmapuri District.
2.
The Inspector of Police Arur Police Station Arur, Dharmapuri District.
.. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent not to impound the driving licence of the petitioner and to return his driving licence to him. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyathurai For Respondents : Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 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 not to impound the driving licence of the petitioner and to return his driving licence to him.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation, Salem.
It is stated that the petitioner's driving licence was seized, in pursuant to an accident taken place on 26.11.2017 and followed by the registration of FIR in Crime No.555 of 2017 under Sections 279, 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 second respondent is justified in retaining the driving license of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mk To 1.
The Regional Transport Officer Arur (Via & Post) Dharmapuri District.
2.
The Inspector of Police Arur Police Station Arur, Dharmapuri District.
+1cc to Mr.S.Ayyathurai, Advocate, S.R.No.9134 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.9710 W.P.No.2672 of 2018 PVS(CO) CS/02/03/18