O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certorarified Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to return the original driving licence (DL.No.TN36

200000039888) to the petitioner forthwith.

2.a. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that he is a Driver of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation of Coimbatore. On 22.12.2022, while he was driving the bus bearing registration No.TN-33-N-3460 met with an accident due to which a pedestrian died. Pursuant to the accident the 1st Respondent registered a case against the petitioner in Cr.No.785 of 2022 under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC and forwarded the FIR to the Judcial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.

2. The first respondent while registering the FIR, collected the original driving licence of the petitioner, retained the same and on 23.12.2022 sent it to the 2nd Respondent and recommended to cancel the licence. The 2nd Respondent has not taken any penal action against his driving licence since the criminal case against the petitioner is pending investigation. The petitioner has not convicted by the criminal court for rash and negligence driving. Therefore, it is his contention that unless the criminal court convicts him the transport authorities cannot suspend or revoke the driving licence. The Petitioner has sent a representation to the 2nd Respondent on 26.12.2022; however, licence has not been returned to him. Hence he filed this writ petition.

2.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader Mrs.R.Anitha appearing for the Respondents.

3. Mr.K. Hariharan, learned Additional counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the police has no power to seize the licence and forward the same to the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent cannot impound the licence until the criminal court finds him guilty. Therefore, it is his contention that in many cases this Court has held that retaining licence by the 2nd Respondent is not permissible under law without any enquiry. The police also has no power to seize the licence. In such a view of the matter mere retaining the licence by the second respondent, in fact will have a serious consequences and will affect the drivers engaged by the Corporation and Government Undertakings. Therefore, seeks direction of the court to release the licence.

4. Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in view of the sub-clause (4) to Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, the police can very well seize the licence from the driver who caused an accident. Similarly under Section 19(1A) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, 2nd Respondent viz., Regional Transport Authority i.e., the R.T.O., have a power to suspend or revoke the licence. Hence, submitted that when the authority has power under the statute to seize the impugned licence, the same cannot be returned at the present. Hence opposed the writ petition.

5. It is not disputed that immediately after the accident the licence was seized by the first respondent and he appears to have forwarded the same to the 2nd Respondent. It is useful to refer the Judgment of the Division Bench in Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority reported in 2010 Writ L.R.100, wherein para 8 the Division Bench has held that a bare reading of Section 19(1) shows that the Licensing Authority has the power to revoke any licence or disqualify a person for a specified period from holding or obtaining a driving licence, if any of the contingencies prescribed in Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 arises. Moreover, the power under Section 19(1) can be invoked only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the holder of the licence and for reasons to be recorded in writing.

6. Similarly in S. Murugan vs. Licensing Authority [W.A.(MD) No.176 of

2009 dated 22.06.2009 Madurai Bench of Madras High Court] also the Division Bench took the same view, however, directed the Respondent to return the licence as the licence was retained both without an orde