A.S.Kumar v. Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-08-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
1. A.S.Kumar S/o.Sadayapethar, 50-a, Navithankottai, Mettur Dam, Salem District Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Inspector Of Police Annur Police Station, Coimbatore District 2.The Licensing Authority Cum Regional Transport Officer, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to return the original driving licence (DL.No.TN27-Y-19970000335) to the petitioner forthwith
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.Hariharan H.Vallabh Narayan For Respondent:
Dr.C.E.Pratap, GA[Crl.Side] for R1 Mrs.C.Meeera Arumugam, AGP for R2
ORDER
(1)M\Dr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] accepts notice on behalf of the 1 st respondent and Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the 2 nd respondent. With the consent of the learned counsels on either side, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. (2)The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent to return the original driving licence of the petitioner forthwith. (3)The petitioner is a driver of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. While so, on 17.07.2025, when the petitioner was driving the Transport Corporation Bus, a major accident occurred in which a motorcyclist died. The petitioner states that the 1 st respondent therefore registered a criminal case in Cr.No.360/2025 for the offences under Sections 106[1] and 281 of BNS. The
petitioner further states that the 1 st respondent while registering the FIR, collected the driving licence of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the nd respondent to take action for cancellation of the driving licence. The petitioner further states that as the petitioner's original licence was seized by the 1 st respondent, the Management of the Transport Corporation refused to give the petitioner any duty and therefore, the petitioner was left without employment. The petitioner, under the aforesaid circumstances, having no alternate remedy, filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief. (4)The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under identical facts, this Court, relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, allowed a writ petition in WP.No.24198/2025 vide order dated 07.07.2025. (5)Heard the learned counsels on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.
(6)As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the identical facts, this Court in WP.No.24198/2025 has held as follows:- ''5.The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of
P.Sethuraman Vs. The Licensing Authority, the Regional Transport Office, Dindigul in WA[MD].No.364/2009 dated 30.07.2009 submitted that unless the concerned individual was convicted by the Criminal Court, the respondent had no right to seize the original driving licence. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- ''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 a 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 in mind.
12.In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to return 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, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.''
6.I am of the view that the aforesaid judgment applies to the facts of the present case. Therefore, a direction is issued to the 2 nd respondent to return the driving licence of the appellant within a period of one week from the date 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.'' (7)Following the aforesaid order, a direction is issued to the 2 nd respondent herein to return the petitioner's original driving licence within a period of one week from the date 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.
(8)The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. 25-08-2025 AP Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.Inspector Of Police Annur Police Station, Coimbatore District 2.The Licensing Authority Cum Regional Transport Officer, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District
N.MALA J.
AP 25-08-2025