COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking to direct the 2nd Respondent in both petitions to return the original driving licences (DL.No.TN21 19870000537)

and (DL.No.TN01 198400008377) to the respective petitioners forthwith.

W.P.No.3061 of 2023:

2. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that he is a Driver of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation of Villupuram. On 14.01.2023, while he was driving the bus bearing registration No.TN-32-N-4194 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.19 of 2023 under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC and forwarded the FIR to the Judcial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

3. The first respondent while registering the FIR, collected the original driving licence of the petitioner, retained the same and on 14.01.2023 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 18.01.2023; however, licence has not been returned to him. Hence he filed this writ petition.

W.P.No.3066 of 2023:

4. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that he is a Driver of Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai. On 04.01.2023, while he was driving the bus bearing registration No.TN-01-AN-3595 met with an accident due to which a motor cycle rider died. Pursuant to the accident the, 1st Respondent registered a case against the petitioner in Cr.No.09 of 2023 under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC and forwarded the FIR to the Judcial Magistrate, Poonamallee.

5. The first respondent while registering the FIR, collected the original driving licence of the petitioner, retained the same and on 09.01.2023 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 10.01.2023; however, licence has not been returned to him. Hence he filed this writ petition.

6.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader Mrs.R.Anitha appearing for the Respondents in both the writ petitions.

7. Mr.K. Hariharan, learned Additional counsel appearing for the Petitioners in both the writ petitions would submit that the police have no power to seize the licences and forward the same to the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent cannot impound the licences 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 licences. In such a view of the matter, mere retaining the licences 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 licences.

8. 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 Au