Allowed

Sekar.R v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC28 Jan 2022WP(MD)/1599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the first respondent RTO to return the original driving license of the petitioner, a bus driver involved in a fatal accident, within two weeks, noting that the matter was at the FIR stage but citing precedents allowing return.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent shall return the original driving license to the petitioner within a fortnight (on or before 11.02.2022) upon due acknowledgment.

Sekar.R Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.1599 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.01.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.[MD]No.1599 of 2022 and W.M.P.[MD]No.1391 of 2022

R.Sekar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Transport Officer, And Licensing Authority, TN – 45 Pirattiyur RTO, Tiruchirapalli West,

¶7

Trichy to Dindigul Main Road, Pirattiyur, Trichy – 620 009.

¶8

2.The Regional Transport Officer

¶9

And Licensing Authority,

¶10

TN 45 Z RTO Manaparai,

¶11

Manaparai – 621 306,

¶12

Trichy District.

¶13

3.The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing – South, Police Station,

Trichy.

[Crime No.6 of 2022]

... Respondents

P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith return petitioner's original driving license bearing DL No. TN 04 19820001584 to him within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.M.Ramesh Government Advocate

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

¶21

Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel on record for the sole writ petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

2. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is working as a Driver with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. It is submitted that on 06.01.2022, there was an unfortunate fatal accident, when the writ petitioner was behind the wheel in the course of his duty while driving a public transport https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bus plying between Trichy and Dindigul. A First Information Report

¶23

1/3

¶24

W.P.[MD]No.1599 of 2022

¶25

(FIR) has been registered inter alia under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This Court is informed that the matter is still at FIR stage.

¶26

3. Be that as it may, learned counsel submits that the third respondent had seized the original driving licence of the writ petitioner at the time of the aforementioned accident and the third respondent had handed over the original driving license of the writ petitioner to the first respondent. This Court is informed that the original driving licence of the writ petitioner was issued to the writ petitioner on 05.10.1982 and it bears 'No.TN 04 19820001584' (hereinafter 'said DLR' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

¶27

4. Mr.M.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents.

¶28

5. There is no disputation or disagreement that the captioned matter is covered by the principle laid down by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in P.Sethuram VS. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul in W.A.[MD]No.374 of 2009 authored by Hon'ble Justice V.Ramasubramanian (as His Lordship then was) presiding the Hon'ble Division Bench. This judgment is reported in 2010-Writ L.R.100 and this deals with the scope of the power of the first respondent in cases of such nature.

¶29

6. There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that in similar matters prayers have been acceded to and that includes orders dated 30.04.2019 in W.P.No.13570 of 2019 and 10.11.2020 in W.P(MD).No.15797 of 2020 made by Honourable Predecessor Judges.

¶30

7. Learned State counsel submits, on instructions, that the matter is in FIR stage (as already alluded to supra) and prosecution will be pursued. However, there is no disputation qua the aforementioned earlier orders made by Honourable Predecessor Judges and the same having been complied with by the State without carrying the matter in appeal by way of intra-court appeals.

¶31

8. In the light of the narrative thus far, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer in the captioned writ petition viz., prayer to return the original driving licence [bearing licence No. TN 04 19820001584 ] of the writ petitioner can be acceded to.

¶32

9. This Court is informed that the original driving licence i.e., said DLR is now with the first respondent. The first respondent shall take necessary written undertaking, retain photocopies of the original driving licence and return the writ petitioner's aforementioned original driving licence i.e., said DLR to the writ petitioner (under due acknowledgment) as early as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ possible and in any event within a fortnight from today i.e., on or

¶33

2/3

¶34

W.P.[MD]No.1599 of 2022

¶35

before 11.02.2022. The writ petitioner shall go over to the office of the first respondent on any working day in the after noon session between 02.00 PM and 04.00 PM and the original driving licence shall be handed over to him under due acknowledgment.

¶36

10. It is made clear that the writ petitioner shall produce the original driving licence as and when called for, make himself available for the criminal case to proceed and cooperate with the investigation.

¶37

11. Captioned Writ Petition is disposed of in aforesaid manner i.e., with aforementioned directive. Consequently, captioned Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Assistant Registrar (CS II)

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶42

¶43

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.

¶44

¶45

1.The Regional Transport Officer, And Licensing Authority, TN – 45 Pirattiyur RTO,Tiruchirapalli West, Trichy to Dindigul Main Road,Pirattiyur, Trichy – 620 009. 2.The Regional Transport Officer And Licensing Authority,TN 45 Z RTO Manaparai, Manaparai – 621 306,Trichy District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing – South,Police Station, Trichy.

¶46

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

¶47

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-3095[F] dated 31/01/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.A.Rahul, Advocate ( SR.No.2856)

¶48

W.P.[MD]No.1599 of 2022 28.01.2022

¶49

MGJ(08.02.2022) 3P 7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶50

3/3

Sekar.R v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sekar.R 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.R.Dhamodaran Vs the Joint Commissioner

Muthuvel.S Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mohamed Hakkim.M Vs the Superintendent Engineer

Vinith Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shrilus Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Manimegalai.S Vs the State Transport Appellate Tribunal