K.Seenan, v. The Transport Commissioner,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 30.03.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.9032 of 2015 K.Seenan S/o.Kuppusamy
...Petitioner
vs 1.The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Assistant License Issuing Authority, The Regional Transport Office, Redhills, Chennai - 600 067.
3.The General Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai Limited, Chennai - 600 002.
4.The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.
5.The Inspector of Police, J-3, Traffic Investigation Wing, Guindy Police Station, Guindy, Chennai - 600 056.
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2015 and thereby direct the respondents to return the petitioner's license in D.L.No.TN-20Z-19940001097 which was seized by the fifth respondent and hand over to the second respondent. For Petitioner :Mr.M.V.Muralidaran For Respondents :Mr.Dig Vijaya Pandian Additional Government Pleader [R1 & R2] Mr.P.Kannan Kumar [R3] *****
O R D E R
Heard Mr.M.V.Muralidaran, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader
for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Kannan Kumar, learned counsel for third respondent. By consent of either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. Petitioner seeks for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return the petitioner's driving license in D.L.No.TN-20Z-19940001097 which was seized by the fifth respondent/Inspector of Police and handed over to the second respondent.
3. Petitioner is a driver working under the third respondent/ Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited. The petitioner was involved in an accident on 17.03.2015, resulting in registration of a case on the file of the fifth respondent.
4. It is represented by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the criminal case, the fifth respondent seized the driving license of the petitioner and handed over the same to the second respondent.
5. In reply, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the case has been registered against the petitioner.
6. Petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in P.Sethuram v. The Licensing Authority, Dindigul [2010 Writ LR 100], wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that pendency of a criminal case would not give jurisdiction to the authority to cancel the license and that the authority will have to await the outcome of the criminal case and that the Corporation has to prove the Commission of cognizance of offence. The Division Bench of this Court further held that in case, license is with the Transport Corporation, it could be returned.
7. If the license has been produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, it is open to the petitioner to make necessary application before the said Judicial Magistrate and the same may be considered by him in accordance with law. If the license is with the respondents, it should be handed over to the petitioner in terms of the decision cited supra.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar
To 1.The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Assistant License Issuing Authority, The Regional Transport Office, Redhills, Chennai - 600 067.
3.The General Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai Limited, Chennai - 600 002.
4.The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.
5.The Inspector of Police, J-3, Traffic Investigation Wing, Guindy Police Station, Guindy, Chennai - 600 056.
+1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.18362 +1 cc to Mr.M.V.Muralidaran, Advocate,SR.17770. +1 cc to Mr.PKannan kumar, Advocate,SR.17803. rsy(co) krd 8/4 W.P.No.9032 of 2015