Allowed

Ramson v. the Regional Transport Authority

Madras HC17 Jun 2021WP(MD)/9939/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a driver whose licence was seized by police following an accident-related FIR, approached the High Court under Article 226. The Court held that impounding a licence before a statutory order under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is illegal. The petition was allowed, directing the return of the original driving licence.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent was directed to return the petitioner's original driving licence to him forthwith upon receipt of a copy of this order.

Ramson Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.9939 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.06.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.9939 of 2021

Ramson

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Transport Authority, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Souththamaraikulam Police Station, Souththamaraikulam, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the petitioner's original driving licence bearing DL.No.TN74 20000000343 within a time frame fixed by this Court in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD) No.8792 of 2021 dated 29.04.2021.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Government

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return the petitioner's original driving licence bearing DL.No.TN74 20000000343, within a stipulated time.

¶16

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶17

(i) The petitioner is a Driver by profession and he is having a valid driving licence bearing DL.No.TN74 20000000343. On 01.05.2021, while he was driving a Taurus Lorry bearing registration No.TN-74-AU-8462, there was an accident in which, one person died. First Information Report was filed in Crime No.102 of 2021 and a case was registered against the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C.

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P(MD)No.9939 of 2021

¶20

(ii) It is stated by the petitioner that the original licence was seized by the second respondent police. Subsequently, on 20.05.2021, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for return of his original licence. Since the respondents have not returned the licence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the second respondent has no authority to impound the 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. The final report has not also been filed.

¶22

From the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, it is noted that the original driving licence of the petitioner is now in possession of the first respondent.

¶23

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.

¶24

In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, in Sethuraman v. Regional Transport Officer reported in 2010 WLR 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 pre-determination of the issue and the authority has no jurisdiction to do so.

¶25

I do also respectfully agree with the views of the Division Bench of this Court and in the instant case, the second 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.

¶26

In such circumstances, a direction is issued to the first respondent – Regional Transport Authority, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, to return the original driving licence bearing DL.No.TN74 20000000343 to the petitioner forthwith, on receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.P(MD)No.9939 of 2021

¶30

In fine, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶35

¶36

Note:

¶37

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.

¶38

¶39

1.The Regional Transport Authority, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, Souththamaraikulam Police Station, Souththamaraikulam, Kanyakumari District.

¶41

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-19647[F] dated 18/06/2021 )

¶42

W .P(MD)No.9939 of 2021 17.06.2021

¶43

KM(02.07.2021) 3P 4C

¶44

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

¶45

3/3

Ramson v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramson v. the Regional Transport Authority

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

S.Tamil Selvi Vs Muthurani Lavanya

Ragavan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sathish.S Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Muthusamy.v Vs the Managing Director

M/S.Gvg Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Palanikumar.v Vs the Regional Transport Officer