Allowed

Saravanakumar.v v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC9 Feb 2021WP(MD)/1624/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that impounding a driving licence without a specific order under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 amounts to predetermination and is without jurisdiction. The Court directed the RTO to return the licence forthwith and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to return the petitioner's original driving licence forthwith and without any delay.

Saravanakumar.v Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1624 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.02.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P(MD)No.1624 of 2021

V.Saravanakumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Collectorate Complex, Chettiyanayakkanpatti Post, Thadikombur Road,

¶8

Dindigul – 624 001.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Oddanchatram Police Station, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to return the petitioner's original driving lincense bearing No.TN60 1993 0002188 to the petitioner forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Prasanth.S For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramar, Additional Government Pleader.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶14

2.The petitioner's original driving license was seized by the respondents. This was because the petition mentioned vehicle was involved in Crime No.17 of 2021 registered on the file of the second respondent. It is case of fatal accident.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before passing the order under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

¶17

1/2

¶18

W.P(MD)No.1624 of 2021

¶19

1988, if driving licence is impounded, it amounts to predetermination of the issue and the authority has no jurisdiction to do so.

¶20

5.Applying the aforesaid decision, I hold that the first respondent erred in not returning the petitioner's original driving license. The first respondent is directed to return the petition mentioned original driving license to the petitioner forthwith and without any delay.

¶21

6.The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶22

Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

ias

¶26

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶27

To:

¶28

1.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Collectorate Complex, Chettiyanayakkanpatti Post, Thadikombur Road, Dindigul – 624 001.

¶29

2.The Inspector of Police, Oddanchatram Police Station, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District.

¶30

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-4261[F] dated 10/02/2021 )

¶31

W.P(MD)No.1624 of 2021 09.02.2021

¶32

VB (26.02.2021) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

2/2

Saravanakumar.v v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanakumar.v 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

Xavier @ Rajasekar. L Vs The District Collector

Hajee K.K.ibrahim Ali Hr.SEc.School Society Vs The Inspector General of Registration

The Special Officer, Thiruchi Vs the Principal District Judge

Pl. a. Sales Corporation Vs The Registering Authority -cum-

M/S. Standard Match Vs the Commissioner of Land

A.Jamal Mohammed, Vs the Assistant Engineer