Allowed

A.Senthil, v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Feb 2018WP/3158/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a state transport driver, sought a writ of mandamus for the immediate return of his seized driving license, arguing that its retention was unlawful pending a criminal trial following an accident. The Hon'ble Court held that retaining the license solely due to a pending criminal case is erroneous, drawing from specific precedent, and directed its return to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent (Regional Transport Officer) to return the petitioner's driving license immediately upon receipt of the order copy.

A.Senthil, Vs Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.3158 of 2018

¶6

A.Senthil .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. Inspector of Police
Vennathur Police Station
Vennanthur, Rasipuram
Namakkal District.
2. The Regional Transport Officer
Thiruchengodu Road, Namakkal (North)
Namakkal District. .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the
2nd respondent herein to return the petitioner's driving licence
bearing No.TN-27-Y-19990001659 forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Balamurugan
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R

¶8

Mr.E.Balamurugan, learned Special Government Pleader 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.

¶9

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to return his original driving license bearing No.TN27-Y-19990001659.

¶10

Heard both sides.

¶11

The petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport, Salem Division. It is stated that the petitioner's driving licence was seized, in pursuant to an accident taken place on 01.01.2018 and followed by the registration of FIR in

¶12

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

¶13

Crime No.3 of 2018 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. Now the petitioner seeks for return of the driving licence by contending that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to seize and retain the driving licence, simply because a criminal case is filed against the petitioner and the same is pending.

¶14

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. Hence, I do not think that the second respondent is justified in retaining the driving license of the petitioner.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to return the driving license of the petitioner immediately on 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 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.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

¶21