Allowed

R.Kalviarasan v. The Branch Manager

Madras HC5 Sept 2017WP/23828/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a simple order, directed the Respondent Licensing Authority to return the petitioner's impounded driving license within a week. The court clarified that this does not preclude initiating action if future contingencies under the Motor Vehicles Act arise.

What did the court decide?

The Licensing Authority is directed to return the petitioner's original Driving License within a week from receipt of this order.

R.Kalviarasan Vs The Branch Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.23828 of 2017

¶6

R.Kalviarasan ... Petitioner

¶7

..v..

¶8

The Branch Manager Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Depot I Tiruvannamalai.

¶9

The Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Authority, Madhuranthagam, Kanchipuram District.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, G-1, Madhuranthagam Police Station, Madhuranthagam, Kancheepuram District ... Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to return the original Driving License of the petitioner in D.L.No.TN 25-19870000313 forthwith.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jawahar

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.O.Selvam, GA (R2&3)

¶14

O R D E R Mr.O.Selvam, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents 2 and 3. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶15

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to return his original Driving License in D.L.No.TN 25-19870000313 forthwith.

¶16

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

¶17

3.It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Driver in the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., and in the accident that had occurred on 10.06.2017, the petitioner's Driving License was seized by the Inspector of Police and handed over to the 2^nd respondent. According to the petitioner, FIR was registered in Crime No.388 of 2017 under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC.

¶18

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:

¶19

“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.”

¶20

Mr.O.Selvam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 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)]].

¶21

6.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I direct the 2^nd respondent to return the petitioner's original Driving License bearing D.L.No.TN 2519870000313 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 2^nd 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.

¶22

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

¶23

With these observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS IV )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Branch Manager
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd.,
Tiruvannamalai Depot I
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Licensing Authority,
Regional Transport Authority,
Madhuranthagam,
Kanchipuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
G-1, Madhuranthagam Police Station,
Madhuranthagam,
Kancheepuram District
+ 1 cc to Mr.B.Jawahar, Advocate,SR.64219
+ 1 cc to M/s.O.Selvam, Advocate,SR.64187
+ 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.64096
W.P.No.23828 of 2017
NR 07/09/2017

¶25

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

R.Kalviarasan v. The Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kalviarasan v. The Branch Manager

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.Pavans Hall Mark Testing Vs Bureau of Indian Standards

R.Elangovan, Vs Inspector of Police

Mrs. Bakyalakshmi Natarajan, Vs State rep. by the Secretary

M.Vivekanandan Vs The Superintendent of Police

M/s.Raasi Green Earth Energy Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

B.Viji, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer