Disposed

Arociyadoss v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC30 Apr 2015WP(MD)/7723/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to return the petitioner's seized driving licence to the investigation officer, who must then produce it before a Magistrate for return under Section 206(1) of the MV Act, following a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Directive to return driving licence to investigation officer for production before Magistrate.

Arociyadoss Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

Arockiyadoss

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.04.2015 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.7723 of 2015

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Pudukkottai.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to return the driving licence of the petitioner bearing DL.No.TN55 20080000745 to the petitioner forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.PonKarthikeyan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj, G.A.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to return the driving licence of the petitioner bearing DL.No.TN55 20080000745 to the petitioner forthwith.

¶15

Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the alleged accident did not happen by mistake of the petitioner, the licence of the petitioner has been seized and the same has not been returned to the petitioner. Therefore, he approached the respondent and also made representation, but the licence has not been returned to him so far. Hence, he has come forward with this Writ petition.

¶17

4.In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P. (MD)No.18186 of 2013 dated 14.11.2013. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18186 of 2013 is extracted here under: “5.Having regard to the above position, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:

¶18

“The respondent is directed to return the driving licence to the investigation officer in Crime No.208/2013 on the file of the Samayapuram Police Station, who shall, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in turn, issue an acknowledgment to the petitioner and then, produce the same before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, in turn, shall

¶19

¶20

exercise his power under Section 206(1) of the MV Act and return the licence to the petitioner.”

¶21

6.Considering the fact that the issue involved in the instant case

¶22

has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18186 of 2013 dated 14.11.2013 this Court is also inclined to pass similar orders as under: “The respondent is directed to return the driving licence to the Investigation Officer in Crime No.21 of 2015 on the file of the Keeranur Police Station, Pudukkottai District who shall in turn issue an acknowledgment to the petitioner and then, produce the same before the jurisdiction Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, in turn, shall exercise his power under Section 206(1) of the MV Act and return the licence to the petitioner.”

¶23

7.The Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No

¶24

costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

\True copy\

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Pudukkottai.

¶31

+1cc to MR.R.PONKARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE SR.NO.24155

¶32

+1cc to THE SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SR.NO.24861

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.7723 of 2015 30.04.2015

¶34

NBJ

¶35

NA/25/05/2015/P2/4C

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Arociyadoss v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arociyadoss v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Mariselvam Vs the Assistant Registering

K. Indumathi, Vs the Divisional Railway

C.S. Ebinesar, Vs the Registrar

K. Arifyanayagam, Vs the Inspector General

S.Appadurai Vs Thestate of Tamilnadu

Uma Maheswari Vs the Government of