Allowed

P.Raman, v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Dec 2017WP/31789/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition, directing the respondents to return his original driving license seized after a road accident. The court held that mere registration of a criminal case does not justify suspension or retention, though the authorities retain the right to initiate proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act if further contingencies arise.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to return the petitioner's original driving license immediately upon receipt of a copy of the order.

P.Raman, Vs The Inspector of Police — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.31789 of 2017

¶6

P.Raman ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Inspector of Police,
Jolarpettai Police Station,
Jolarpettai,
Vellore District.
2. The Licensing Authority cum Motor
Vehicle Inspector,
Regional Transport Office,
Vaniyambadi,
Vellore District. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent herein to return the petitioner's original driving license (D.L.No.TN24 19980000200) to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Jagadeesan For Respondents: Mr.K.J.Sivakumar Government Advocate.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents and by consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent herein to return the petitioner's original driving license (D.L.No.TN24 19980000200) to the petitioner.

¶14

It is seen that the petitioner is a driver employed in the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, and his driving license was seized in pursuant to the accident took place on 11.11.2017 followed by registration of a criminal case in FIR.No.370/2017. It is further stated that the license of the petitioner is not suspended so far and no proceedings in any form was issued to the petitioner till this date. Therefore, it

¶15

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

¶16

is contended by the petitioner that the seizure of the license and retaining the same is erroneous merely because the criminal case was registered against the petitioner in respect of an accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention relied on the decision reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 (P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Dindigul) and a single Judge decision made in W.P.No.16958/2013 dated 01.07.2013 reported in 2013 Writ L.R.843 (S.Duraivelu vs. The Regional Transport Officer, West Thambaram, Chennai & 2 others).

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the license of the petitioner was seized since an accident had taken place on 11.11.2017 while the petitioner was driving the vehicle.

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

It is seen that the petitioner's driving license was seized pursuant to the accident that had taken place on 11.11.2017 followed by the registration of the criminal case. It is further seen that the license of the petitioner has not been suspended so far. Even in respect of the cases where the license were suspended, this Court in the above referred cases, has held that the authorities are not entitled to suspend the license merely because the criminal case is registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get back the license, however, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the driving license of the petitioner immediately on receipt of a copy of this order. However, it shall not preclude the second respondent from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies specified in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of Section 19(1)(f) of the Act, are violated. No costs.

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

vsi

¶23

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

¶24

¶25