Ulaganathan, v. Regional Transport Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.11.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition No.27984 of 2017 Ulaganathan .. Petitioner Vs.

1.

Regional Transport Officer Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

2.

The Sub-Inspector of Police Vickramangalam Police Station Ariyalur District.

.. Respondents PRAYER:

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to return the driving licence of the petitioner bearing No.TN-46-19980001847 pursued to the representation dated 23.10.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondents : Mr.P.V.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, 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 first respondent to return the petitioner's driving license bearing No. TN-46-19980001847.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The petitioner is a driver by profession. It is stated that the petitioner's driving licence was seized in pursuant to

an accident taken place on 05.12.2016 and followed by the registration of FIR in Crime No.279 of 2016 under Section 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 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 /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar mk To 1.

The Regional Transport Officer Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

2.

The Sub-Inspector of Police Vickramangalam Police Station Ariyalur District.

+1 CC to Mr. T. Muruganantham , Advocate Sr.No. 77833 W.P.No.27984 of 2017 MD: 23/11/2017