The Court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's explanation, conducting an enquiry, and passing a reasoned order within a specified time, while also highlighting the petitioner's right to livelihood.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to forthwith return Petitioner's original driving license bearing TN 58 20050005305 to him within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.)

1. Heard Mr. K.Hariharan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. G.Nanmaran, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. J.Subbiah, Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The Petitioner is a driver in the State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Limited and while on duty, the bus bearing Registration No. TN-01-AN-2407 driven by him had on 10.11.2023 at 4.00 a.m. met with an accident and his driving licence was seized on 14.11.2023 by the Second Respondent, who is investigating that accident, and forwarded to the First Respondent as the Licensing Authority. In that backdrop, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P.Sethuram -vs- Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul (2010 WLR 100) holding that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) do not empower the Licensing Authority to suspend or revoke a driving licence for a first offence, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a direction to the Licensing Authority to return his driving licence.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent submits that certain amendments have been made to the Act, which have come into force from 01.09.2019 onwards and clause (4) in Section 206 and clause (1-A) in Section 19 have been inserted to the Act, which have bearing to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition and read as follows:-

"206. Power of police officer to impound document:-

....

(4) A police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed, an offence under any of Sections 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194-C, 194-D or 194-E, seize the driving licence held by such driver and forward it to the licensing authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under Section 19:

Provided that the person seizing the licence shall give to the person surrendering the licence a temporary acknowledgement therefor, but such acknowledgement shall not authorise the holder to drive until the licence has been returned to him."

"19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence:-

....

(1-A) Where a licence has been forwarded to the licensing authority under sub-section (4) of Section 206, the licensing authority, if satisfied after giving the holder of the driving licence an opportunity of being heard, may either discharge the holder of a driving licence or, it may for detailed reasons recorded in writing, make an order disqualifying such person  from holding or obtaining any licence to drivel all or any class or description of vehicles specified in the licence:-

(a) for a first offence, for a period of three months;

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, with revocation of the driving licence of such person:

Provided that where a driving licence is revoked under this Section, the name of the holder of such driving licence may be placed in the public domain in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government." It is submitted that in view of the same, the lacunae highlighted by the Division Bench of this Court no longer exists, and the impugned action of seizing the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle involved in an accident by the Police Officer a