Allowed

V.Sathiyamurthy, v. The Joint Transport

Madras HC17 Mar 2016WP/10011/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders suspending the petitioner's driving licence pending a criminal case. Relying on prior Division Bench precedent barring such suspension before trial completion, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed return of the licence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 13.11.2015 and 23.02.2016 are set aside; second respondent directed to return driving licence within one week without endorsement.

V.Sathiyamurthy, Vs The Joint Transport — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.10011 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

WMP Nos.8957 of 2016 & 8958/2016

¶8

V. Sathiyamurthy .... petitioner
v.
1. The Joint Transport Commissioner/
Appellate Authority,
O/o of the Joint Transport Commissioner,
Coimbatore Circle,
Dr. Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore – 18
2. The Regional Transport Authority,
Coimbatore West,
Kovaipudur,
Coimbatore – 641 042 ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records pertaining to the order dated 13.11.2015 passed
by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.47411/B3/2015 and the order
dated 23.02.2016 passed by the first respondent in Se.Mu.Order
No.006/A1/2016, quash the same in sofar as the order
disqualifying the petitioner original driving licence
temporarily for a period of 5 months from 08.10.2015 to
07.03.2016 and consequently direct the second respondent to
return him forthwith the petitioner's original driving licence
without any endorsement.

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V. Ajoy Khose

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.A. Zakir Hussain Govt. Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 13.11.2015, passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.47411/B3/2015 and the order dated 23.02.2016, passed by the first respondent in Se.Mu.Order No.006/A1/2016 and to quash the same in sofar as the order suspending the driving licence of the petitioner for a period of five months from 08.10.2015 to 07.03.2016 and consequently direct the second respondent to return him forthwith the petitioner's original driving licence without any endorsement.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that when the criminal case, registered in Cr.No.216 of 2016 on 20.09.2015 for the offence punishable under Secs.279 and 304-A IPC, are pending, the second respondent had erroneously passed the impugned order, suspending the driving licence of the petitioner. This Court, in the judgment reported in 2010 WLR 100 (P. Sethuram vs The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul), the Division Bench of this Court held that such suspension of the driving licence, even before the completion of the criminal case, is liable to be set aside.

¶15

Mr.A. Zakir Hussain, learned Government Advocate submitted that the issues involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court reported in 2010 WLR 100 (P. Sethuram vs The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul)

¶16

Following the judgment of the Division Bench reported in 2010 WLR 100, the impugned orders dated 13.11.2015, passed by the second respondent and the order dated 23.02.2016, passed by the first respondent are liable to be set aside and accordingly the same are set aside. The second respondent is directed to return the driving licence of the petitioner within a week's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without making any endorsement on the driving licence. However, it shall not preclude the respondents from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies specified in Motor Vehicles Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, are

¶17

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

¶18

violated. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Mps are closed.

¶19

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sr
To
1. The Joint Transport Commissioner/
Appellate Authority,
O/o of the Joint Transport Commissioner,
Coimbatore Circle,
Dr. Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore – 18
2. The Regional Transport Authority,
Coimbatore West,
Kovaipudur,
Coimbatore – 641 042
+1 cc to Mr.V.Ajoykhose Advocate sr.17113
+1 cc to Government pleader sr.17339
W.P.No.10011 of 2016
aa22/03/2016

¶20

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

V.Sathiyamurthy, v. The Joint Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sathiyamurthy, v. The Joint Transport

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.Shanmugaraj Vs P.Thenmozhi

S.Suresh Vs The District Collector

M/s.T.Abdul Wahid Tanneries Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl. C.T.R. Lift & Shift. Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

S.K.Sampath, Vs State Transport Authority

Tvl.Gautham Associates Vs The Assistant Commissioner