Allowed

C.Kannan, Dr NO.37637 v. The Transport Commissioner

Madras HC9 Aug 2017WP/13546/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a driver seeking the return of his seized Driving License. Citing prior precedents, the Court directed the respondents to return the license within a week. It clarified that this direction does not prevent the authorities from initiating future legal action if specific contingencies under the Motor Vehicles Act occur.

What did the court decide?

Direct order to return the petitioner's Driving License (DL. No.TN57 19980004388) within a week from receipt of the order.

C.Kannan, Dr NO.37637 Vs The Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.No.13546 of 2017

C.Kannan

... Petitioner

Vs.
1.The Transport Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Licensing Authority,
Unit Office, Batlakundu.
3.The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Salem District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Sooramangalam Police Station,
(Traffic Investigation Wing),
Salem City.

¶9

5.The General manager, State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Limited, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Pallavan House, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to return the petitioner's Driving License bearing DL. No.TN 5719980004388 and enable him to join duty as Driver with the 5^th respondent.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajendiran For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatesh (R1 to R4) Government Advocate

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to return the petitioner's Driving License bearing DL. No.TN57 19980004388 and enable him to join duty as Driver with the 5^th respondent.

¶14

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

¶15

2.It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Driver in the State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Limited, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Pallavan House, Chennai – 600 002 and in the accident that had occurred on 03.05.2017, the petitioner's Driving License was seized by the 4^th respondent, Inspector of Police. According to the petitioner, FIR was registered in Crime No.367 of 2017 under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC.

¶16

3.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:

¶17

“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.”

¶18

Mr.R.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents also submitted that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (2) CTC 626 [R.Ravi Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Transport Department, Chennai – 600 078 [Chennai (West)]].

¶19

5.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I direct the respondents to return the petitioner's original Driving License (DL. No.TN57 19980004388) 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.

¶20

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

¶21

6.With this observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Tsi
To
1.The Transport Commissioner,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Licensing Authority,
Unit Office, Batlakundu.
3.The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Salem District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Sooramangalam Police Station,
(Traffic Investigation Wing),
Salem City.
5.The General manager,
State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Limited,
Thiruvalluvar Salai,
Pallavan House,
Chennai – 600 002.
+1 cc to the Government Pleader sr 57885
W.P.No.13546 of 2017

¶23

gj(co) aa04/09/2017

¶24

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

C.Kannan, Dr NO.37637 v. The Transport Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Kannan, Dr NO.37637 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

M/s.Sulochana Cotton Spinning Vs The Inspector General of

P.Selvi Vs The District Collector

P. Arunkumar Vs The District Collector

Subbayammal, Vs The Regional Manager

P.Ramesh, Vs The Senior Divisional

B.Bakiyaraj, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer