Allowed

S.Anbu Siddharthan v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC28 Nov 2016WP/37942/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Respondents to return the petitioner's driving license. The petition was filed after the license was seized following a fatal accident where the petitioner was a driver but the accused driver was a motorcyclist who crashed into a bus. The court relied on previous precedents.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd Respondent directed to return the Driving License of the petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of the order.

S.Anbu Siddharthan Vs The Transport Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.11.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.37942 of 2016

¶6

S.Anbu Siddharthan ... Petitioner

¶7

vs. 1.The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The Assistant License Issuing Authority, Regional Transport Office, Tambaram, Kanchipuram District. 3.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Sholinganallur, Kanchipuram District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing, St.Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai-600 016. 5.The Branch Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Tambaram Depot, Chennai-600 045. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to return the petitioner's driving license in D.L.No.TN45 19890001656 enable him to join and continue his service in the fifth respondent Transport Corporation.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sundara Pandiyan for Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna For Respondents : Mr.K.J.Shivakumar

¶10

Government Advocate (For R1 to R4)

¶11

Mr.P.Kannan Kumar (For R5)

¶12

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

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Mr.K.J.Shivakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.P.Kannan Kumar, learned counsel takes notice for the 5^th respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

2.In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to return his driving licence.

¶16

3.It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Driver in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Tambaram and in the accident that had occurred on 08.07.2016, a motorcyclist who was driving Bajaj Pulsar Two Wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 10 P 8156 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a car bearing registration No.TN 20 BH 5263 and consequently fallen in front of the bus on the left hand side and sustained fatal injury and died. Subsequently, the 4^th respondent police had registered a case in Crime No.312 of 2016 under Sections 279 and 338 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. The 4^th respondent handed over the driving licence of the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent. Hence the above writ petition.

¶17

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is covered by the decision of this Court reported in 2015 (2) CTC 626 [R.Ravi Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Transport Department, Chennai – 600 078 [Chennai (West)]] wherein it has been held as follows:

¶18

“Following the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court reported in P.Sethuram V. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul, 2009 (2) TN MAC 252 (DB) : 2010 WLR 100, the impugned Order passed by the Respondent us liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The Respondent is directed to return the Driving Licence of the petitioner within a 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 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 violated.”

¶19

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

¶20

5.Mr.K.J.Shivakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 also submitted that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (2) CTC 626 (cited supra).

¶21

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, following the ratio laid down in the said judgment, the 3^rd respondent is directed to return the Driving License of the petitioner within a week's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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 violated.

¶22

With this observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. No
costs.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
r n s
To
1.The Transport Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant License Issuing Authority,
Regional Transport Office,
Tambaram, Kanchipuram District.
3.The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Sholinganallur,
Kanchipuram District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Traffic Investigation Wing,
St.Thomas Mount Police Station,
Chennai-600 016.
5.The Branch Manager,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Tambaram Depot,
Chennai-600 045.

¶23

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

¶24

+1 cc to Mr.P.Kanna Kumar Advocate sr 70637

¶25

+1 cc to Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna Advocate sr 69768

¶26

+1 cc to Government Pleader sr 70080

¶27

W.P.No.37942 of 2016
rv(co)
aa09/12/2016

¶28

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

S.Anbu Siddharthan v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anbu Siddharthan v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.T.S.Mohan Vs Gajalakshmi

Samiyappan Vs Mr.K.Palanisamy

V.Perumal Vs the Director of School

M/s.Jms Exports, Vs The Commissioner of Customs

M/s.Edhayam Frozen Foods Vs The Tax Recovery Officer-2

M/s.Tulsi Electricals, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer