Disposed

C.Karuppiah, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC26 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21940/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed for a mandamus directing the respondent to return the petitioner's seized driving licence was disposed of without going into merits, directing the official to consider the representation in light of a Division Bench decision within one week.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.10.2018 and dispose of it on merits within one week.

C.Karuppiah, Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.10.2018 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶5

W.P(MD)No.21940 of 2018

C.Karuppiah

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, (Madurai – North), Madurai. .. 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-55-19960000187 forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.R.Murugan, 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 03.10.2018, he drove a bus bearing Registration No.TN-55-N-0642 between Ponnamaravathi and Madurai. There was no accident caused by him. While so, a case was registered in Cr.No.266 of 2018 under Sections 133, 187, 201, 279 and 304(A) I.P.C. alleging that an accident was happened at Platform No.4 in Mattuthavani Bus-stand by hitting an aged person and due to that, that aged person died on the spot. 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 12.10.2018, 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

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

¶16

¶17

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, on instruction, would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered by the respondent forthwith.

¶18

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 12.10.2018, 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.

¶19

This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS I)

¶24

gcg To

¶25

1.The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, (Madurai – North), Madurai.

¶26

1CC TO MR. S. ARUNACHALAM, ADVOCATE SR 92533 1CC TO THE SPL GOVT PLADER SR 92601 DS SKN SAR 1 29 10 2018 2P 4C

¶27

Order made in W.P(MD)No.21940 of 2018

¶28

26.10.2018

¶29

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

C.Karuppiah, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Karuppiah, 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

M.Rajendran, Driver, Staff No. Vs the Licensing Authority /

Kumar Vs the Special Tahsildar

Tvl. Nataraja Oil Mills Pvt. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl.Balans Agency, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

J.Muthupandi, (Driver Work No. Vs the Licensing Authority /

M/S. Karthick Impexx, Vs the Commissioner of Customs