Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to return the petitioner's driving license No.TN25 19920001535.
3. The petitioner is a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. It is stated that the petitioner's driving licence was seized in pursuant to an accident that had taken place on 25.08.2017 followed by the registration of FIR in Crime No.231 of 2017 under
Sections 279 and
304(A) IPC. It is further stated that the license of the petitioner is not suspended so far and no proceedings in any form was issued to the petitioner till this date. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that the seizure of the license and retaining the same is erroneous merely because the criminal case was registered against the petitioner in respect of an accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention relied on the decision reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 (P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Dindigul) and a single Judge decision made in W.P.No.16958/2013 dated 01.07.2013 reported in 2013 Writ L.R.843 (S.Duraivelu vs. The Regional Transport Officer, West Thambaram, Chennai & 2 others).
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the license of the petitioner was seized since an accident had taken place on 25.08.2017 while the petitioner was driving the vehicle.
5. Heard both sides.
6. It is seen that the petitioner's driving license was seized pursuant to the accident that had taken place on 25.08.2017 followed by the registration of the criminal case. It is further seen that the license of the petitioner has not been suspended so far. Even in respect of the cases where the license was suspended, this Court in the above referred cases, has held that the authorities are not entitled to suspend the license merely because the criminal case is registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get back the license, however, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to return the driving license of the petitioner immediately on receipt of a copy of this order. However, it shall not preclude the respondents from initiating any action, if any of the contingencies specified in Clauses (a) to (h) of
Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises later or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of
Section 19(1)(f) of the Act, are violated. No costs. 05.10.2017 Speaking/Non Speaking Index : Yes/No mk To
1. The Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2. The Assistant License Issuing Authority O/o.Regional Transport Office Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Assistant License Issuing Authority O/o.Regional Transport Office Gingee, Villupuram District.
4. The Inspector of Police Sathiyamangalam Police Station Thiruvannamalai District.
5. The Branch Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Thenimalai - II Depot Thiruvannamalai District.
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
mk W.P.No.25991 of 2017 05.10.2017