Allowed

P.G.Venkatesan v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Apr 2017WP/8103/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a driver, sought the return of his seized driving licence contending no procedural lapse occurred as no show cause notice was issued and no suspension order passed despite a pending criminal case. The Court held retention unjustified in absence of suspension or notice. Writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to return the petitioner's driving licence within seven days of receipt of this order.

P.G.Venkatesan Vs Inspector of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:06.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.8103 of 2017

¶6

P.G.Venkatesan, A-1, Officers Colony 5^th Street,

¶7

Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088. ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.
1. Inspector of Police
Traffic Investigating Wing,
Saint Thomas Mount Police Station,
Chennai

¶9

The Licensing Authority-CumThe Regional Transport Officer Meenambakkam at Alandur Chennai – 600 016. ... Respondents.

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ, directing the second respondent herein to return the Original Driving Licence ( DL.No.TN-49-19890002915) of the petitioner herein forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai, Government Advocate.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶15

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the petitioner's driving license bearing No. TN-49-19890002915.

¶16

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

¶17

3. Heard both sides.

¶18

The petitioner is a driver in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai. It is stated that the petitioner's driving licence was seized on 07.02.2017, in pursuant to an accident taken place and followed by the registration of FIR in Crime No.72 of 2017 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Now the petitioner seeks for return of the driving licence by contending that the respondents are not entitled to seize and retain the driving licence, simply because a criminal case is filed against the petitioner and the same is pending. It is also stated that till date, no show cause notice is issued to the petitioner. It is also stated that the respondents have not passed any order, suspending the petitioner's license also.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the Division Bench decision of this Court 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), wherein, this Court has considered a similar issue and found that even the suspension of the license on the ground that a criminal case is pending, is erroneous. I myself followed the above decisions in similar cases, wherein licence was suspended. In this case, as it is stated that the petitioner's driving license is not suspended and that the show cause notice has also not been issued so far, I do not think that the respondents are justified in retaining the driving license of the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the driving license to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say, that it is open for the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, by giving due notice to the petitioner and hearing the matter thereafter. No costs.

¶21

/true copy/

¶22

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶23

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

¶24

vsi

¶25

To 1. Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigating Wing, Saint Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai.

¶26

The Licensing Authority Cum The Regional Transport Officer, Meenambakkam at Alandur, Chennai- 600 016 +1cc to Mr.K. Hariharan, Advocate Sr. 20631 W.P.No.8103 of 2017 SKV(CO) VR(07/04/2017)

¶27

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

P.G.Venkatesan v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.G.Venkatesan v. Inspector of Police

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

Sirmax Engineering India P Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Esab India Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.a.Mohammed Sowban Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

Tvl.Andavar Steels, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Nilkamal Ltd, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

K.Sivakumar Vs Inspector of Police