Allowed

K.Soundarapandiyan v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC7 Feb 2020WP(MD)/2393/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the impounding and retention of the petitioner's driving licence by the Respondent following a fatal accident. The Court held that the Respondent lacked jurisdiction to impound the licence before passing an order under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and consequently directed the return of the original licence.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Respondent to return the original driving licence bearing D.L.No.TN45-19960004007 to the petitioner forthwith upon receipt of a copy of the order.

K.Soundarapandiyan Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2393 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.02.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA W.P.(MD)No.2393 of 2020

¶5

K.Soundarapandiyan : Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Theni. : Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to return the driving licence of the petitioner bearing D.L.No.TN45-19960004007 to the petitioner forthwith.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent.

¶12

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶13

This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to return the driving licence of the petitioner bearing D.L.No.TN4519960004007 to the petitioner forthwith.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that he is employed as a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam) Limited. On 10.01.2020, while he was driving a bus bearing Registration No.TN 45 N 3987, there was an accident, in which, a person is said to have died. Hence, a case in Crime No.17 of 2020 on the file of Chinnamanur Police Sation, was registered for the offence under Sections 279, 304(A) of I.P.C. It is stated by the petitioner that the original licence was seized by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.01.2020 to the respondent for return of original licence. Since the respondent has not returned the licence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contend that the respondent has no authority to impound the

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.2393 of 2020

¶18

driving licence even before passing the orders under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Insofar as the criminal case is concerned, it has not reached finality and it is in the initial stage.

¶19

From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, it is noted that the original driving licence of the petitioner is now in possession of the respondent.

¶20

It is settled law that until the licence or any certificate issued by the competent authority is cancelled or suspended or revoked in the manner known to law, it is deemed to be in force. The impounding of licence will come only after passing of the order as per the relevant provisions of the statute, in this case, under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶21

In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, in P.Sethuram v. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul, reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 , held that even before passing the order under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if driving licence is impounded, it amounts to predetermination of the issue and the authority has no jurisdiction to do so.

¶22

I do also respectfully agree with the views of the Division Bench of this Court and in the instant case, the respondent has no power to impound the driving licence of the petitioner and retain it with him. The petitioner is a driver and he is entitled to use the licence till it is legally cancelled or suspended.

¶23

In such circumstances, a direction is issued to the respondent – the Regional Transport Officer, Theni, to return the original driving licence bearing D.L.No.TN45-19960004007 to the petitioner forthwith, on receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶26

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.2393 of 2020

¶30

¶31

¶32

The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Theni.

¶33

+1 CC to MR.S.ARUNACHALAM, Advocate ( SR-5507[F] dated 10/02/2020 )

¶34

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-5379[F] dated 10/02/2020 )

¶35

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2393 of 2020 Dated: 07.02.2020

¶36

KM/(17.02.2020) 3P 4C

¶37

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

¶38

3/3

K.Soundarapandiyan v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Soundarapandiyan 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

T.Sathyanesan Vs The District Collector

S.Muthurajan Vs the Commissioner

Sivakumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S. Sivabalan Vs the Commissioner

The Lorry owners Association Vs The TamilNadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep by its

M. Veerajothi Vs the Director of Drugs Control