Partly allowed

G.Murugesan, S/O. Gopal, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC12 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21456/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for the return of his driving licence, seized during a police investigation, and dispose of it on merits within one week, relying on a prior Division Bench decision. The court declined to examine the merits itself.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2018 and dispose of it on merits within one week.

G.Murugesan, S/O. Gopal, Vs the Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.21456 of 2018

¶7

G.Murugesan .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Pudukkottai. .. Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to return the Driving License of the petitioner bearing D.L.No.TN-55-19870001525, forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganandham, Additional Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent herein to return the original Driving Licence of the petitioner forthwith.

¶14

The petitioner is working as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited. On 02.10.2018, while he was driving a bus bearing Registration No.TN-55-N-0616, there was an accident in which a two-wheeler rider sustained injury. In this regard, a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.218 of 2018 under Section 304(A) I.P.C. Pending investigation, the original Driving Licence of the petitioner was seized by the Police, who in turn forwarded the same to the respondent. The petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 05.10.2018, to the respondent seeking return of the original driving licence. As there was no response to the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

¶18

¶19

respondent, on instruction, would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered by the respondent forthwith.

¶20

In view of the above and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 05.10.2018, in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD). No.176 of 2009, (S.Murugesan Vs. the Licensing Authority, the Regional Transport Officer, Srirangam, Trichy), dated 22.06.2009 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-)

¶25

¶26

The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Pudukkottai.

¶27

1 CC TO Mr.S.ARUNACHALAM, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 90465 + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 90816 GCG

¶28

TE/SKN/SAR-1 : 23/10/2018 : 2P/4C

¶29

Order made in W.P(MD)No.21456 of 2018 12.10.2018

¶30

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

G.Murugesan, S/O. Gopal, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Murugesan, S/O. Gopal, v. the Regional Transport Officer

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

I Jayanthi, Vs the Governement of

Tvl. Anuj Trade Link Co., Vs the Assistant Commissioner(St)

M/S.Supreme Agencies Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

G.Senthil Kumar, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

The Chief Engineer, Vs Thiru. S. Veeraperumal

M. Palanichamy, Vs the Special Deputy