O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to return the petitioner's Original Driving Licence bearing No.TN-57-20060004354 to the petitioner forthwith.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a driver of a bus owned by the State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. The bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-AN-3454, which the petitioner was driving was involved in a road traffic accident that happened on 16/12/2022, at 12.50 a.m., in which a man died. Immediately, a First Information Report in Crime No.568 of 2022, dated 16/12/2022 was registered against the petitioner, for an offence under Sections 279 and 304 – A of the Indian Penal Code, by the second respondent Police.

3. While registering the First Information, the second respondent who had already seized the Driving Licence of the petitioner handed over the same to the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 23/12/2022, to return the original Driving Licence. Since the same has not been considered so far, the petitioner has come forward the present writ petition praying for the relief as stated therein. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Police has no power to seize the licence and forwarded the same to the first respondent. The first respondent cannot impound the licence until the criminal Court finds him guilty. He further contended that in many cases, this Court has held that retaining licence by the first respondent is not permissible under law without any enquiry and the Police also has no power to seize the licence. Mere retaining the licence by the first respondent, in fact, will have a serious consequences and will affect the drivers engaged by the Corporation and Government Undertakings. Therefore, seeks direction to release the licence.

6. Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in view of sub-clause (4) to Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, Police can very well seize the licence from the driver, who caused an accident. Similarly, under Section 19 (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, first respondent, viz., Regional Transport Officer 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.

7. It is not disputed that immediately after the accident, licence was seized by the second respondent and he appears to have forwarded the same to the first respondent. It is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority reported in 2010 Writ L.R.100, wherein at para 8, the Hon'ble 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 reasons to be recorded in writing.

8. Similarly in S. Murugan vs. Licensing Authority [W.A.(MD)

No.176 of 2009 dated 22.06.2009, a Hon'ble Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, took the same view. However, directed the Respondent to return the licence, as the licence was retained both without an order in writing and without affording an opportunity of being heard. This is a clear violation of the provisions of the Statute.

9. In S. Krishnan Vs. The Licensing Authority [MANU/TN/1360/2012] the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, at para 6 held that Section 19 itself gives