Disposed

M.Murugan v. The Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC14 Dec 2022WP(MD)/28101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that if a driving licence seized due to an accident results in a three-month suspension penalty for a first offence, thelicence must be returned within three months to prevent indefinite driving ban before the final order, while requiring adherence to hearing and reasoning mandates.

What did the court decide?

Driving licence to be returned within three months of seizure if penalty is suspension for first offence, endorsed to allow driving pending final outcome, with direction to conduct hearing and record

M.Murugan Vs The Regional Transport Officer — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 28101 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.12.2022

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 28101 of 2022

¶7

M.Murugan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Regional Transport Ófficer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶10

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Tamil University Police Station, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to return the original driving licence No:TN 09 19900001595 of the petitioner to him forthwith.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Balaji For Respondents : Mr. M.Senthil Ayyanar

¶13

Additional Government Pleader

¶14

1/8

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P. (MD) No. 28101 of 2022

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard Mr. A.Balaji, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.Senthil Ayyanar, Learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶19

The Petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited and while on duty, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-63-N-1798 driven by him had on 24.10.2022 met with an accident. According to the Petitioner, the Police Officer, who is investigating that accident, had on 26.10.2022 seized the driving licence of the Petitioner and forwarded it to the First Respondent, who is the Licensing Authority, and the Petitioner had made representation dated 27.10.2022 to return the same, but as not action has been taken thereon, he has filed this Writ Petition.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent has brought to notice that following the recommendations made by the Committee on Road Safety appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶21

2/8

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P. (MD) No. 28101 of 2022

¶24

of India (F.No.05/2014/CoRS-Part-III, dated 18.08.2015), show cause notice in File No.49058/B1/2022, dated 23.11.2022 has been sent on 29.11.2022 to the Petitioner, who would have to submit his explanation for the same within a period of ten days from the date of its receipt, and thereafter orders would be passed by the First Respondent in the matter. The copy of the same has been furnished to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Court.

¶25

At this juncture, it must be noticed that certain amendments have been made to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), which have come into force with effect from 01.09.2019 onwards and clause (4) in Section 206 and clause (1-A) in Section 19 have been inserted to the Act, which have bearing to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition and read as follows:-

¶26

" 206. Power of police officer to impound document:-

¶27

(4) A police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed, an offence under

¶28

any of Sections 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194-C, 194-D or 194-

¶29

3/8

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P. (MD) No. 28101 of 2022

¶32

E, seize the driving licence held by such driver and forward it to the licensing authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under Section 19:

¶33

Provided that the person seizing the licence shall give to

¶34

the person surrendering the licence a temporary acknowledgement therefor, but such acknowledgement shall not authorise the holder to drive until the licence has been returned to him."

¶35

" 19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence:-

¶36

(1-A) Where a licence has been forwarded to the licensing authority under sub-section (4) of Section 206, the licensing authority, if satisfied after giving the holder of the driving licence an opportunity of being heard, may either discharge the holder of a driving licence or, it may for detailed reasons recorded in writing, make an order disqualifying such person from holding or obtaining any licence to drivel all or any class or description of vehicles specified in the licence:-

¶37

4/8

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P. (MD) No. 28101 of 2022

¶40

(a) for a first offence, for a period of three months;

¶41

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, with revocation of

¶42

the driving licence of such person:

¶43

Provided that where a driving licence is revoked under this Section, the name of the holder of such driving licence may be placed in the public domain in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government."

¶44

It is evident on plain reading of the said provisions that the Licensing Authority has to record detailed reasons in writing after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the concerned holder of the driving licence for having arrived at the conclusion to either discharge or disqualifying him from holding the driving licence. That apart, on a conspectus analysis of clause (4) of Section 206 of the Act, which mandates that after seizure of licence by the Police Officer, its holder shall not be authorized to drive until it had been returned to him, and clause (1-A)(a) of Section 19 of the Act, which envisages disqualifying a person from holding a licence to drive vehicles for a first offence for a period of three months, it would necessarily follow that in the event of the Licensing Authority arriving at the conclusion that penalty of suspension of licence has to be imposed for the first offence, it cannot be for 5/8

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P. (MD) No. 28101 of 2022

¶47

a period beyond three months from the actual date on which the driving licence has been seized from its holder by the Police Officer after the occurrence of accident.

¶48

In view of the foregoing discussion, this court without expressing any view on the merits of controversy involved, passes the following order:-

¶49

(i) the Petitioner shall submit his explanation to the show cause notice dated 23.11.2022 issued to him within ten days from the date of its receipt;

¶50

(ii) the Licensing Authority shall immediately consider the explanation submitted by the Petitioner for the show cause notice dated 23.11.2022 issued to him;

¶51

(iii) if any other details or supporting documents are necessary, the deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing by the Licensing Authority to the Petitioner requiring the same to be furnished within 2 clear working days from the date of its receipt by him;

¶52

(iv) an enquiry shall be conducted thereafter affording full opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner to explain his position in that regard; and

¶53

(v) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions

¶54

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.P. (MD) No. 28101 of 2022

¶57

raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken communicated under written acknowledgment.

¶58

(vi) in the event that the First Respondent is not able to pass final orders within the period of three months from the actual date of seizure of the driving licence of the Petitioner by the Police Officer if it is the first offence, the driving licence of the Petitioner shall be then returned to him with endorsement to the effect that the Petitioner shall not be precluded from driving the vehicles for which he is otherwise authorized from that date onwards, subject to the result of the proceedings in which final orders would follow later; and

¶59

(vii) the First Respondent shall file report of such compliance before the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court.

¶60

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶61

14.12.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ta Note : Issue copy of the order by 23.12.2022

¶62

7/8

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.P. (MD) No. 28101 of 2022

¶65

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

¶66

¶67

To:

¶68

1.The Regional Transport Ófficer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶69

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Tamil University Police Station, Thanjavur District.

¶70

W.P. (MD) No. 28101 of 2022

¶71

14.12.2022

¶72

8/8

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Murugan v. The Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murugan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rengarajan.v Vs Union of India

M.Kanakaraj Vs the District Collector

M.Jeevanandam Poosari Vs the District Colletor

Manimara Boopathi Vs Thakkar/Fit Person

Pavunathal @ Periyathai Vs Thakkar/Fit Person

Kalidoss Bharath Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax