Madras High Court
N.Malairaja vs The Licensing Authority / Regional on 27 February, 2019
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD).No.4596 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.3672 of 2019
N.Malairaja ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Licensing Authority / Regional
Transport Officer,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
2. The Licensing Authority / Regional
Transport Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Natham Police Station,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for
records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent
in br/K/Miz/vz;/00159 dated 22.01.2019 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to return
the petitioner's original driving license bearing Regn.
No.TN-65-19980002511 valid upto 08.08.2020.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan,
Government Advocate
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the first respondent, suspending the licence of the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is employed as a Driver with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Ramanathapuram Rural branch for the past six years. While driving the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation on 21.01.2019, the bus met with an accident which resulted in the death of a person who was driving a motor cycle. The First Information Report (F.I.R) was registered against the petitioner and his driving license was impounded by the third respondent who has handed over the same to the first respondent. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 22.01.2019 was passed by the first respondent suspending the driving license of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the suspension of the driving license of the petitioner under the impugned order, the instant writ petition has been filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3. Heard Mr.S.Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that without establishing the guilt against the petitioner for rash and negligent driving, the respondents have impounded the driving license of the petitioner without following the due procedure established under the law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of P.Sethuram vs., the Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office and others reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100, wherein the Division Bench directed the return of the driving license due to the fact that the Regional Transport Authority has preconcluded the issue that the holder of the driving license is guilty for rash and negligent driving even before the Criminal Court or the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, had found the holder of the Driving license guilty of the offence. The relevant paragraph of the Division Bench judgement is extracted here under:-
“11.The respondent has, in the impugned order preconcluded the issue that the appellant is guilty of http://www.judis.nic.in 4 rash and negligent driving, even before the Criminal Court or the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal went into the issue. Even to invoke Section 19(1)(c), it is necessary to show that the Motor Vehicle is used the commission of a cognizable offence. Without making a specific averment regarding the same, the order suspending the driving licence cannot be taken to be passed after due application of mind.
12.In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to return the driving licence of the appellant, within a week of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it shall not preclude the respondent from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies specified in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19(1) of the Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of Section 19(1)(f) are violated. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23.01.2019 in W.P(MD) No.1199 of 2019 in the case of S.R.Rajan vs., the Regional Transport Officer and other following the Division Bench judgment referred supra, wherein the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 learned Single Judge has held that only the competent Criminal Court can impound the driving license and it is not open to the Regional Transport Officials to impound the same when the guilt of the holder of a driving license has not been established before the Competent Criminal Court. In the case on hand also, the petitioner's guilt has not been established by a competent criminal Court. Therefore, the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court referred to supra is squarely applicable for the petitioner also.
6. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Transport Corporation is willing to take back the petitioner and give him duty as a Driver. But since the driving license has been suspended, he is unable to rejoin duty.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the first respondent is erroneous and has to be quashed and the first and second respondents are directed to return the petitioner's original driving license bearing D.L.No.TN-65-19980002511 within a period of one(01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. http://www.judis.nic.in 6
8. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD).No.3672 of 2019 is closed.
27.02.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
sts
Note: Registry is directed to
issue order copy on 01.03.2019
To
1. The Licensing Authority / Regional
Transport Officer,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
2. The Licensing Authority / Regional
Transport Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Natham Police Station,
Dindigul District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.,
sts
Order made in
W.P.(MD).No.4596 of 2019
27.02.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in