Disposed

Chandran. T v. The Regional Transport Officer (Rto)

Madras HC23 Dec 2022WP(MD)/28989/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition by a driver whose licence was seized after an accident. The court held that the Licensing Authority must afford a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order within three months of seizure, otherwise return the licence with a proviso.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit explanation; Licensing Authority to consider it, conduct enquiry with personal hearing, and pass reasoned order within three months of seizure or return licence with endo

Chandran. T Vs The Regional Transport Officer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.12.2022

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

T.Chandran

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Office at Regional Transport Office, Thuraiyur Town, Trichirappalli District.

¶11

The Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Office at Regional Transport Office, Attur and Town, Salem District.

¶12

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Periyamilaguparai, Trichy Region, Trichirappalli.

¶13

The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Trichy Region, Uppiliyapuram Branch, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

1/10

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein namely the Regional Transport Authority (RTO), Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District (1st Respondent) and Regional Transport Authority (RTO) , Attur, Salem District (2nd Respondent) to return the original driving license No. TN 48 19990001323 of the petitioner herein forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For Respondent No.1 : Mr. D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader For R2 to R4 : Mr. K.Jagadeesan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Mr. N.Sudhagar Nagaraj, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. D.Gandhiraj, Learned Special Government pleader, who takes notice for the First Respondent and Mr. K.Jagadeesan, Learned Counsel, who takes notice for the Second to Fourth Respondents, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶22

The Petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tiruchirappalli Region, Uppiliyapuram Branch and while on 2/10

¶23

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

¶24

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶25

duty, the bus bearing Registration No. TN-45-N-3718 driven by him had on 13.12.2022 met with an accident. According to the Petitioner, the Police Officer, who is investigating that accident, had on 14.12.2022 seized the driving licence of the Petitioner and forwarded it to the Second Respondent, who is the Licensing Authority, and the Petitioner had made representation dated 15.12.2022 to return the same, but as no has been taken thereon, he has filed this Writ Petition.

¶26

Learned Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent has brought to notice that following the recommendations made by the Committee on Road Safety appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (F. No. 05/2014/CoRS-Part-III dated 18.08.2015), show cause notice in File No. 32263 B1 2022 dated 23.12.2022 has been sent today 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 Second Respondent in the matter.

¶27

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 3/10

¶28

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

¶29

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶30

short), which have come into force from 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:-

¶31

"206. Power of police officer to impound

¶32

document:-

¶33

(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 any of Sections 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194-C, 194-D or 194-E, seize the driving licence held by such driver and forward it to the licensing authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under Section 19:

¶34

Provided that the person seizing the licence

¶35

shall give to the person surrendering the licence a

¶36

4/10

¶37

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

¶38

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

licence :-

¶42

(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:-

¶43

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

¶44

5/10

¶45

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

¶46

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶47

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, with

¶48

revocation of the driving licence of such person:

¶49

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."

¶50

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 6/10

¶51

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

¶52

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶53

suspension of licence has to be imposed for the first offence, it cannot be for 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.

¶54

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

¶55

(i) the Petitioner shall submit his explanation to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2022 issued to him within ten days from the date of its receipt;

¶56

(ii) the Licensing Authority shall immediately consider the explanation submitted by the Petitioner for the show cause notice dated 23.12.2022 issued to him;

¶57

(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;

¶58

7/10

¶59

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

¶60

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶61

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

¶62

(v) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken communicated under written acknowledgment;

¶63

(vi) in the event that the Second 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

¶64

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

¶65

8/10

¶66

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

¶67

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶68

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

¶69

costs.

¶70

23.12.2022

¶71

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No pkn

¶72

Note: Issue order copy by 23.12.2022.

¶73

TO:

¶74

The Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Office at Regional Transport Office, Thuraiyur Town, Trichirappalli District.

¶75

The Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Office at Regional Transport Office, Attur and Town, Salem District.

¶76

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Periyamilaguparai, Trichy Region, Trichirappalli.

¶77

The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Trichy Region, Uppiliyapuram Branch, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶78

9/10

¶79

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

¶80

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶81

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

¶82

pkn

¶83

W.P. (MD) No. 28989 of 2022

¶84

23.12.2022

¶85

10/10

¶86

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

Chandran. T v. The Regional Transport Officer (Rto)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran. T v. The Regional Transport Officer (Rto)

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

Hazrath Kabadi Mosque Vs Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

Rajesh Gurusamy Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise

The Kodaikanal Golf Club Vs the Special Officer-Cum-Commissioner

Sivakumar Vs The Joint Commissioner cum Executive Officer

V.Ramakrishnan Vs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest(Hoff)

R.Ilanjiyam Vs the District Collector