Disposed

Raju H v. the Licensing Authority/ Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC3 Jan 2022WP(MD)/23181/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed RTO to return petitioner's seized driving licence within fortnight after accident, citing principle that licence should be returned in FIR stage pending prosecution.

What did the court decide?

RTO to return driving licence bearing TN 45-19830000094 to petitioner within fortnight with written undertaking.

Raju H Vs the Licensing Authority/ Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP(MD) No.23181 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.01.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD) No.23181 of 2021

¶5

H.Raju ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Licensing Authority / Regional Transport Officer, The Unit Office, Kulithalai Zone, Kulithalai,

¶8

Karur District.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Kulithalai Police Station, Kulithalai, Karur District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to return the driving license of the petitioner bearing D.L.No.TN 45-19830000094 forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Arunkumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Ramesh, Government Advocate.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Mr.V.R.Arunkumar, learned counsel on record for the sole writ petitioner is before this virtual Court.

¶14

Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is working as a Driver with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation from 1988. It is submitted that on 13.12.2021, 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 bus plying between Trichy Sathiram bus stand and Neithalur. A First Information Report (FIR) has been registered inter alia under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the second respondent police. This Court is informed that the matter is still at FIR stage.

¶15

Be that as it may, learned counsel submits that the second respondent had seized the original driving licence of the writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner at the time of the aforementioned accident and the

¶16

1/3

¶17

WP(MD) No.23181 of 2021

¶18

second respondent had handed over the original driving license of the writ petitioner to the first respondent. Be that as it may, the original driving licence of the writ petitioner was also issued to the writ petitioner on 06.01.1983 and it bears 'No.TN 45-19830000094' (hereinafter 'said DLR' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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 45-19830000094] of the writ petitioner can be acceded to.

¶24

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 possible and in any event within a fortnight from today i.e., on or before 17.01.2022. The writ petitioner shall go over to the office of the first respondent on any working day in the after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ noon session between 02.00 PM and 04.00 PM and the original

¶25

2/3

¶26

WP(MD) No.23181 of 2021

¶27

driving licence shall be handed over to him under due acknowledgment.

¶28

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.

¶29

Captioned Writ Petition is disposed of in aforesaid manner i.e., with aforementioned directive and there shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

¶32

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.

¶33

¶34

1.The Licensing Authority / Regional Transport Officer, The Unit Office, Kulithalai Zone, Kulithalai, Karur District.

¶35

2.The Inspector of Police, Kulithalai Police Station, Kulithalai, Karur District.

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-178[F] dated 04/01/2022 )

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.23181 of 2021 03.01.2022 NSN(CO) SB(10.01.2022) 3P 4C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

Raju H v. the Licensing Authority/ Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju H v. the Licensing Authority/ 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

Abbas .R Vs the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

K.Vinodhkumar, Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Muthuramalingam M Vs the Managing Director

Subbaiah Vs the District Collector

M/S.M.S.Marketing Vs the State Tax Officer

Aadhavan P Vs the Secretary to Government