BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH…
RTO directed to return petitioner's driving licence within one week; police may forward materials to RTO for Section 19 action after final report.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
P.Muthukumar
... Petitioner
versus
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to return the petitioner's driving licence bearing D.L.No.TN 72-20090008488 forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For R1 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader
1/11
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
For R2 : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to return the driving licence of the petitioner, which was seized by the officials, subsequent to the registration of the criminal cases for the offence under Sections 279 and 304 (A) IPC.
2/11
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
23.01.2024 to the first respondent, requesting him to return his original driving licence. However, there was no response on the said representation. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not convicted by any Criminal Court and the petitioner did not commit any offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submits that final report has not been filed so far in the criminal case registered against this petitioner. Therefore, the respondents cannot retain the driving licence of the petitioner.
the second respondent submits that the petitioner is not having any previous case and the case in Crime No.6 of 2024 registered against
him is pending at the stage of investigation.
3/11
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC, which are cognizable offence. If any cognizable offence is committed, the authority after giving reasonable opportunity to the person concerned is empowered to suspend the license as per Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1981 read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice. However, the petitioner without offering his explanation to the show causes notice, approached this Court with the above prayer. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Corporation. While he was driving a bus, an accident had occurred and later, the victim had succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, a case has been registered against the petitioner under Section 279 and 304(A)
4/11
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
IPC. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court stating that it is
not for the Regional Transport Officer to decide the guilt of the petitioner. Further, the final report in the criminal case has not been filed so far.
“8. A bare reading of Section 19(1) shows that the Licensing Authority has the power to revoke any licence or disqualify a person for a specified period from holding or obtaining a driving licence, if any of the contingencies prescribed in Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub Section (1) of Section 19 arises. Moreover, the power under Section 19(1) can be invoked only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the holder of the licence and for reasons to be recorded in writing.
5/11
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
9. But in the case on hand, the licence of the appellant was impounded or retained by the police immediately after the accident. Thereafter, the respondent issued the show cause notice under Section 19(1) of the Act, after getting a report from the police. Therefore the impounding of the licence has actually preceded the issue of show cause notice.”
“Section 19 itself gives the power to the authority to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence when the licensing authority is satisfied after giving notice to the licensee and enumerated 10 disqualification clauses. One among them was Section19(1)(C) which clearly states that when the vehicle is used and a
6/11
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
cognizable offence is made out all that is required is the authority should satisfy itself whether the petitioner has utilized the vehicle which resulted in a cognizable offence. Admittedly, this appellant used the vehicle and caused the death of a person.”
“19. In such a view of the matter, this court is of
7/11
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
the view that seizure of the licence to take action under section 19 is not a mandatory. Irrespective of licence being surrendered or produced before the authorities, the action can be initiated by the authorities under Section 19 on the report submitted by the police. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely on the basis of the FIR is registered particularly in the other IPC offences, the police officer cannot have power to seize the licence. If at all any action is contemplated under Section 19, they may forward a report to the concerned RTA to take action under Section 19 of the Act. On such report the licensing authority is satisfied any of the contingencies in clauses 1(a) to (h) of Section 19 and sub~clause 1A of the Act and after giving an opportunity to the holder of the licence may pass an order as contemplated in Section 19 of the Act.
20. Accordingly this Court hold that the seizure of the licence in the given case is not valid in the eye of law and the 2nd Respondent is directed to return the licence within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is well open to the 1st Respondent to send a report to the RTA for taking appropriate action.
8/11
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
The RTA may after providing opportunity to the petitioner may proceed under Section 19 of the M.V. Act and to pass an order on merits.”
respondent police cannot seize the driving license. Further it is not for the Regional Transport Authority to pre-judge the guilt of the petitioners, even before filing of the final report by the respondent Police in the criminal case registered against the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:
i) the first respondent/the Regional Transport Officer is directed to return the driving licence of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ii) it is open to the respondent Police to forward the relevant materials to the first respondent/the Regional Transport Officer after filing of the final report in the criminal case registered against this petitioner.
9/11
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
iii) On receipt of any such materials from the respondent Police, the first respondent/the Regional Transport Officer shall take appropriate action as stipulated under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. No costs.
12.02.2024
NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. ogy
To
10/11
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
W.P.(MD)No.2892 of 2024
12.02.2024
11/11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the police can retain a driver's licence seized after a fatal road accident when no final report has been filed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.Sethuraman Vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, DindigulFollowed¶7
2010 Writ Law reporter 100
S.Murugan Vs Licensing AuthorityReferred
WA(MD)No.176 of 2009 dated 22.06.2009 Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S.Krishnan Vs The Licensing AuthorityReferred¶8
WA(MD)No.783 of 2008
WP No.11 of 2023Followed¶9
4 provisions across 3 enactments
P.Muthukumar
The Regional Transport Officer, Thoothukudi
The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station
B.Pugalandhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
