Allowed

R.Rakesh v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Oct 2019WP/28187/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court issued a writ of Mandamus directing the Regional Transport Officer to return the petitioner's original driving licence seized on 26.08.2019. The delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice was held to deprive the petitioner of fundamental rights, and the enquiry must proceed adhering to specific guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to return the original driving licence forthwith and to continue enquiries after affording due opportunity.

R.Rakesh Vs Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.10.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.28187 OF 2019 R.Rakesh

¶6

... Petitioner Vs 1.The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigating Wing, Poonamallee Police Station, Chennai West.

¶7

2.The Licensing Authority-cum Regional Transport Officer, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053.

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

Prayer :- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, praying to direct the 2nd respondent herein to return the original driving licence (DL.No.20-19980001791) to the petitioner forthwith.

¶10

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Hariharan For Respondents:Mr.N.Inbanathan, Additional Government Pleader ORDER

¶11

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. After seizing the driving licence of the petitioner on 26.08.2019, the Regional Transport Officer has caused Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, calling for his explanation after a month on 25.09.2019. Even the said notice appears to be not received by the petitioner.

¶12

The belated issuance of Show Cause Notice after one month of seizure amounts of deprival of the petitioner's fundamental right. Hence, the first respondent is directed to return the original driving licence of the petitioner forthwith. He shall continue the enquiry proceedings, if necessary and pass appropriate orders after affording due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

While proceeding the enquiry, the respondent shall adhere to the guidelines issued by this Court in W.P.No.26858 of 2019 (S.Lazer Vs. RTO, Tiruppur), dated 26.09.2019.

¶15

4.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶16

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CJ Conf.)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
1.The Inspector of Police,
Traffic Investigating Wing,
Poonamallee Police Station,
Chennai West.
2.The Licensing Authority-cum
Regional Transport Officer,
Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053.
+1cc to Mr.K.Hariharan, Advocate, SR.No.85150
+1cc to the Govt.Pleader, Vide Sr.No.85124
Writ Petition No.28187 of 2019
Kak(07/11/2019)

¶18

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

R.Rakesh v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rakesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Kaladevi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Ravi Vs the Commissioner

M.K.Subi Kumar Vs The Head of the Department

A.Muthuramalingam Vs The Project Director

K.Ramachandra Kurup Vs The Secretary to Govt

R.Abitha Begum Vs Mr.Anbu Selvan