Disposed¶41

M.Ramesh v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Jan 2026WP/338/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Return of driving licence fatal accident Madras High Court WP No. 338 of 2026 V. Lakshminarayanan J.; TNSTC driver; Crime No.650 of 2025 Sections 281, 125(a), 106(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; licence seized by Uthukuli Police, Tiruppur, forwarded to Licensing Authority-cum-RTO Avinashi; Article 226 mandamus; P.Sethuram v. Licensing Authority Dindigul 2010 Writ LR 100 applied — licensing authority may act against licensee only after guilt found in criminal proceedings; investigation stage, no charge sheet; licence to be returned forthwith; Motor Vehicles Act proceedings deferred.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to return the petitioner's original driving licence forthwith; writ petition disposed of without costs. ¶41

M.Ramesh Vs Inspector of Police — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the 2nd respondent to return the petitioner's original driving licence forthwith; writ petition disposed of without costs.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to return of his original driving licence, seized after a fatal accident and forwarded to the Licensing Authority-cum-RTO, while the criminal proceedings arising from the accident are still at the stage of investigation.

¶34

Court's answer

Applying the Division Bench ruling in P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul [2010 Writ. L.R. 100] — that in a fatal-accident case the licensing authority can initiate action against the licensee only after the court dealing with the criminal proceedings finds the licensee guilty — and noting that the proceedings here are admittedly still at the stage of investigation, the petitioner is entitled to have his licence returned.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Driving licence — return of licence seized in fatal-accident case while criminal case under investigation — petitioner, a TNSTC employee driving Regn. No.TN 33 N 3357, was involved in a fatal accident on 25.12.2025; complaint in Crime No.650 of 2025 registered under Sections 281, 125(a) and 106(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; licence produced during investigation was seized by the Inspector of Police, Uthukuli, and forwarded to the Licensing Authority-cum-Regional Transport Officer, Avinashi, and the employer withheld assignment of duty. On a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus for return of DL No.TN33 19960002561, the High Court (V. Lakshminarayanan J.) held, applying the Division Bench judgment in P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul [2010 Writ. L.R. 100], that in a fatal-accident case the licensing authority can initiate action against the licensee only after the court dealing with the criminal proceedings finds the licensee guilty, and since the present proceedings were still at the investigation stage (charge sheet not filed), the petitioner was entitled to return of his licence; direction issued to the 2nd respondent to return the original licence forthwith; writ petition disposed of without costs.

¶1

2026:MHC:342

¶2

WP No. 338 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 09-01-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶7

WP No. 338 of 2026

M.Ramesh

Petitioner(s)

1.Inspector of Police Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur District.

¶12

2.The Licensing Authority-cumRegional Transport Officer, Avinashi, Tiruppur District.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER

¶15

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent herein to return the original driving license (DL No.TN33 19960002561) to the petitioner forthwith.

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Hariharan

¶17

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Shajahan Special Government Pleader

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 338 of 2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Mr.K.Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶23

Mr.M.Shajahan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶24

The petitioner is an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC). He was assigned to drive a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 33 N 3357 by his employer. During the course of his employment, on 25.12.2025, the vehicle met with an accident. On account of the accident, one of the persons involved in the accident passed away. Hence, the 1^st respondent registered a complaint in Crime No.650 of 2025 under Sections 281, 125(a) and 106(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner was summoned for investigation. He was called upon to produce his driving license. He did so. The 1^st respondent, taking note of the fact that it is a case of fatality, forwarded the petitioner’s license to the 2^nd respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings. Since the petitioner has been deprived of his driving license, his employer is not assigning him any duty. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶25

Mr.K.Hariharan, relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this

¶26

Court in P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul [2010 Writ. L.R. 100], pleads that in case of a fatal accident,

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 338 of 2026

¶30

action with regard to the license of the driver of the offending vehicle can be initiated only after the criminal proceedings are concluded. He states that as on today, the Police have not filed a charge sheet and the matter is still under investigation. Hence, he requests this Court to apply the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders.

¶31

Mr.M.Shajahan pleads that the 1^st respondent took up the investigation after it was brought to his notice that accident resulted in a fatality. The Police registered an F.I.R. immediately, seized the license of the petitioner, and forwarded the same to the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

Mr.M.Shajahan states that the 2^nd respondent is duty-bound to initiate proceedings in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. He further states that, when it is found that the licensee was the one driving the offending vehicle, then the question of returning the license does not arise.

¶33

I have carefully considered the submission of both sides. I have gone through the records.

¶34

The issue presented in this writ petition is no longer res integra . It is well settled by the judgment, which has been referred to by Mr.K.Hariharan

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 338 of 2026

¶38

cited supra . The Division Bench held that in case of a fatal accident, the licensing authority can initiate action against the licensee, only after the Court dealing with the criminal proceedings, finds the licensee guilty. Admittedly, in this case, the proceedings are still at the stage of investigation. By applying the said judgment to the facts of the present case, the petitioner will be entitled for his license to be returned.

¶39