Partly allowed

P.Udhayakumar, v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC10 Mar 2016WP/8990/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the seizure of his driving licence by respondents 1 to 3. Relying on a recent collegue decision, the Court issued directions to return the licence forthwith while reserving the right of the respondents to proceed in accordance with law after issuing notice, dismissing any claim for costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 to 3 to return the petitioner's driving licence forthwith; respondents open to proceed in accordance with law after notice.

P.Udhayakumar, Vs The Transport Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.8990 of 2016

¶6

P. Udhayakumar .... Petitioner

¶7

vs
1. The Transport Commissioner,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Poonamallee, Chennai - 56
Thiruvallur District
3. The Inspector of Police,
T-12 Traffic Investigation Wing,
Poonamallee,
Chennai-56
4. The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Avadi Depot, Avadi,
Thiruvallur District
..... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to return the petitioner's driving licence in D.L.No.TN 01 19880001279 and enable him to join duty before the 4th respondent.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr.B. Sundara Pandiyan For respondent : Mr.A. Zakir Hussain, Government Advocate

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to return the petitioner's driving licence in D.L.No.TN 01 19880001279 and enable him to join duty before the 4th respondent.

¶12

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

¶13

It is the case of the petitoner that even before the completion of the criminal case, the respondents have seized the driving licence of the petiitoner.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issues involved in the present writ petition, is covered by the decision of this Court made in W.P.No.5514 of 2016 dated 15.2.2016.

¶15

Mr.A. Zakir Hussain, learned Government Advocate, taking notice for the respondents, submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of this court made in WP No.5514 of 2016 dated 15.2.2016.

¶16

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the 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.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Transport Commissioner,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Poonamallee, Chennai - 56
Thiruvallur District
3. The Inspector of Police,
T-12 Traffic Investigation Wing,
Poonamallee,
Chennai-56

¶18

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

¶19

The Branch Manager,

¶20

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Avadi Depot, Avadi, Thiruvallur District.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.M.V.Muralidaran, Advocate, S.R.No.15490 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.15738

¶22

W.P.No.8990 of 2016
kji(CO)
srg(21/03/2016)

¶23

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

P.Udhayakumar, v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Udhayakumar, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Icmc Corporation Ltd. Vs Preventive Officer, Office of

Mr.J.Shivakumar Vs The Principal Commissioner

M/s.Pakkar Leather Export Co., Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.Divya Impex Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/s.Trivitron Health Care P Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

S.Rajkumar Vs The Regional Transport Officer