Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
S. Duraivelu
Versus
The Regional Transport Officer Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No. 16958 of 2013
Decided on: 01-07-2013
Mandamus - Driving License Suspension - Criminal Case - Motor Vehicles Act 1988
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a driver, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to return his suspended driving license due to his involvement in a criminal case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension of the petitioner's license solely based on his involvement in a criminal case was not justified, as per the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and a previous Division Bench judgment.
Issues: The main issue was the justification of suspending the petitioner's license based on his involvement in a criminal case under Section 304-A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and a previous Division Bench judgment, which clarified that the pendency of a criminal case does not give jurisdiction to the authority to cancel the license, and the authority must wait for the outcome of the criminal case.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to release the petitioner's license and remove the endorsement 'Suspended' within one week from the date of receipt of the order.
1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return the driving license to him.
2. The petitioner is a driver working under Metropolitan Corporation Limited. The petitioner was involved in an accident on 06.6.2013 resulting in registration of a case in Crime No.775 of 2013. The respondent on the basis of his involvement in a criminal case, suspended the Driving License of the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
4. The issue raised by the petitioner is no longer res integrain view of the judgment of the Divison Bench of this Court in P.Sethuram Vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, the Regional Transport Office, Dindigul reported in 2010 Writ LR 100. The Division Bench has made it very clear that the pendency of a criminal case would not give jurisdiction to the authority to cancel the license. The authority has to wait for the outcome of the criminal case. The Division Bench further held that only in case the respondent would be in a position to prove the commission of cognizable offence which would attract Section 19(1) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the license could be suspended.
5. The license of the petitioner was suspended solely on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 304-A IPC. The criminal case is still pending. The factum of involvement of the petitioner in an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code would not give any jurisdiction to the respondent to suspend the license. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent was not justified in suspending the license of the petitioner.
6. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to release the license of the petitioner forthwith after removing the endorsement "Suspended" within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
