← Library
Madras High CourtWP/22288/2023allowed

P.Thiruvengadam v. The Regional Transport Officer

2023-07-27Honourable Mr Justice S. Sounthar8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P No.22288 of 2023 P.Thiruvengadam

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Transport Officer Panrutti Cuddalore District.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Cuddalore District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to return the original driving licence No.TN49Z19870000961 of the petitioner to him. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan For Respondents : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Government Advocate 1/8

O R D E R

The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to return the original driving licence No.TN49Z19870000961 of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam. On 03.07.2023, when the petitioner was driving a bus belonging to Corporation, a two wheeler driven in a rash and negligent manner by its rider dashed against the bus and as a result the rider as well as the pillion rider of the two wheeler died on the spot. Therefore, the 2nd respondent registered a criminal case in Crime No.288 of 2023 under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and the said case is pending investigation. The 2nd respondent also seized the original driving licence from the petitioner and forwarded the same to the 1st respondent.

3. The petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent on 06.07.2023 requesting him to return the driving licence. However, the 1st respondent failed to return the driving licence and consequently the petitioner is not in a position to attend his work and the same results in deprivation of 2/8

petitioner's right to livelihood.

4. Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the 1st and 2nd respondents. On instructions, he submits that so far the petitioner has not made any representation to the 1st respondent seeking return of original driving licence.

5. The 1st respondent is not entitled to retain the original driving licence unless he decides to proceed against the petitioner under Section 19(1) of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 r/w Rule 21 Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It is not open to the 1st respondent to come to a conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner when the investigation is pending. The guilt of the petitioner has to be determined either by the Criminal Court after trial or by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. In this circumstances, the 1st respondent is not justified in retaining the original driving licence. This position was very well settled by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Sethuram Vs The Licensing Authority, the Regional Transport Officer, the Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul reported in 2010 Writ L.R.100. The relevant observations of 3/8

the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court which reads as follows:- "8. 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.

9. But in the case on hand, the licence of the appellant was impounded or retained by the police immediately after the accident. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show cause notice under Section 19(1) of the Act, after getting a report from the police. Therefore the impounding of the licence has actually preceded the issue of show cause notice.

10.Apart from the above, there is no allegation, either in the notice or in the order impugned in the writ petition, that the appellant is a habitual criminal or habitual drunkard, so as to attract Clause(a) of Section 4/8

19(1) of the Act. Similarly, neither the show cause notice nor the order impugned in the writ petition, imputes the appellant with any of the ingredients necessary under Clauses (b) to (h) of Sub Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. Except stating that as per the report of the Inspector of Police, the appellant was guilty of rash and negligent driving, the impugned order does not indicate the category in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19(1), under which the case of the appellant would fall.

11.The respondent has, in the impugned order, preconcluded the issue that the appellant is guilty of rash and negligent driving, even before the Criminal Court or the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal went into the issue. Even to invoke Section 19(1)(c), it is necessary to show that the Motor Vehicle is used in the commission of cognizable offence. Without making a specific averment regarding the same, the order suspending the Driving Licence cannot be taken to be passed after due application of mind.

12. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to 5/8

return the Driving Licence of the appellant, within a week of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it shall not preclude the respondent from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies specified in Clauses(a) to (h) of Section 19(1) of the Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of Section 19(1)(f) are violated. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed".

6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, there is no impediment for the 1st respondent to handover the original driving licence if request is made by the petitioner in this regard.

7. In view of the stand taken by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents that the 1st respondent has not received any request from the petitioner so far, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation to the 1st respondent and if any such representation is made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent is directed to return the original driving licence bearing No.TN49Z19870000961 to the petitioner immediately. 6/8

8. This order will not come in the way of 1st respondent taking any action against the petitioner under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 r/w Rule 21 Central Motor Vehicles Rules, by following procedure contemplated under law.

9. With the above observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

27.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order : Yes/No nr To 1.The Regional Transport Officer Panrutti Cuddalore District.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Cuddalore District.

7/8

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

nr W.P No.22288 of 2023 27.07.2023 8/8