Madras High CourtWP/3433/2016disposed of

T.Rejeesh v. The Transport Commissioner

2016-02-01Honourable Mr Justice M.Duraiswamy3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.02.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.3433 of 2016 T.Rajeesh ..

Petitioner v.

1 The Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

2 The Regional Transport Officer Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023.

3 The Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation Wing R4 Pondy Bazaar Police Station T.Nagar Chennai-600 017.

4 The General Manager Metropolitan Transport Corporation Pallavan House, Chennai-600 002.

5 The Regional Transport Officer Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to return the petitioner's driving license in D.L. No. TN Z 20070005789 and enable him to join duty before the 4th respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Muralidaran For Respondent : Mr.M.S.Ramesh, Addl. Govt. Pleader - for R2 & R5 Mr.P.Kanna Kumar - for R4

ORDER

The petitioner, who is the driver working under the 4 th respondent Corporation, has filed the above writ petition

to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to return the petitioner's driving licence in D.L. No. TN Z 20070005789 to enable him to join duty before the 4th respondent.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the driving licence of the petitioner was impounded by the respondents 1 to 3 even without any notice based on the First Information Report registered by the third respondent-Inspector of Police, dated 11.01.2016.

3. The relief sought for in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 [P.Sethuram v. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Office, the Regional Transport Office, Dindigul] wherein the Division Bench of this court held that the Authority has, in the impugned order, pre-concluded 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. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the order suspending the driving licence cannot be taken to be passed after due application of mind.

4. Mr.M.S.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 cited supra].

5. In view of the same, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to return the driving licence of the petitioner forthwith. However, it is open to the respondents 1 to 3 to proceed in accordance with law after issuing notice. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Rj To 1 The Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

2 The Regional Transport Officer Ayanavaram Chennai-600 023.

3 The Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation Wing R4 Pondy Bazaar Police Station T.Nagar Chennai-600 017.

4 The General Manager Metropolitan Transport Corporation Pallavan House, Chennai-600 002.

5 The Regional Transport Officer Marthandam Kanyakumari District.

+1 cc to Government Pleader, sr.6527 W.P.No.3433 of 2016 mg co kra 09.02.2016