SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 82704

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR
P.Jeevarathinam – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Transport Officer – Respondent
WP/28063/2021



The RTO cannot retain a driving license without conducting an enquiry under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:

DRIVING LICENSE - RETENTION - ENQUIRY - [KEYWORD] - The court held that the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) cannot retain the driving license of a petitioner without conducting an enquiry under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The RTO must issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, giving them an opportunity to respond. After considering the petitioner's response, the RTO must conduct an enquiry and pass a final order within a specified timeframe. The court further held that the RTO's decision on whether to return the driving license or impose a punishment will depend on the outcome of the enquiry.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a driver for the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, was involved in a fatal accident while driving a bus. The police seized his driving license and handed it over to the RTO. The RTO retained the license without conducting an enquiry under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the RTO's retention of the petitioner's driving license without conducting an enquiry was unlawful. The court directed the RTO to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, conduct an enquiry, and pass a final order within a specified timeframe.

Issues: 1. Whether the RTO can retain a driving license without conducting an enquiry under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. What is the procedure that the RTO must follow when conducting an enquiry under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which empowers the RTO to disqualify or revoke a driving license after conducting an enquiry and giving the holder an opportunity to be heard. The court held that the RTO must follow the procedure prescribed under Section 19 before taking any action against the petitioner.

Final Decision: The court directed the RTO to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, conduct an enquiry, and pass a final order within a specified timeframe. The court further held that the RTO's decision on whether to return the driving license or impose a punishment will depend on the outcome of the enquiry.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

W.P. No.28063 of 2021

and

W.M.P. No. 29635 of 2021

P.Jeevarathinam

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The Regional Transport Officer,

(Licensing Authority),

Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.

2. The Regional Transport Officer,

(Licensing Authority),

Thiruvanmaiyur, Chennai - 600 041.

... Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus

directing the respondents to forthwith return the petitioner's

original driving license No.TN07Z19910000061 in the light of the

order in W.P. No. 22578 of 2021 dated 22.10.2021 following the

judgment reported in 2010 WLR 100 and in the light of the

representation made by the petitioner on 03.12.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar

For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan

Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus

directing the respondents to forthwith return the petitioner's

original driving license No.TN07Z19910000061 in the light of the

order in W.P. No. 22578 of 2021 dated 22.10.2021 following the

judgment reported in 2010 WLR 100 and in the light of the

representation made by the petitioner on 03.12.2021.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was

working as a Driver at the Metropolitan Transport Corporation

Limited in Thiruvanmaiyur Branch from 2007 onwards.

3. The petitioner while in duty, on 28.10.2021 was driving

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the vehicle with Registration No.TN 01 8718 between

Thiruvanmaiyur and Tambaram and it met with an accident, due to

which, a two wheeler rider died and therefore, it has become a

fatal accident.

4. The said issue since was reported to the Police, they

registered an FIR at Chrompet Police Station in FIR No.308 of

2021 dated 28.10.2021 for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.

5. Also the Police had seized the driving license of the

petitioner and handed over to the respondent Regional Transport

Officer.

6. In the criminal case, the investigation is yet to be

completed. However, insofar as the driving license seized by the

Police handed over to the Regional Transport Officer is

concerned, the Regional Transport Officer has not conducted any

enquiry however, he has retained the same without returning the

driving license to the petitioner, which according to the

petitioner is unlawful and unjustifiable, as such kind of

retention of the driving license without authority of law is

impermissible.

7. On these grounds, the present Writ Petition has been

filed to issue a mandamus to the respondents to return back the

driving license of the petitioner by considering his

representation dated 03.12.2021. Therefore, the present Writ

Petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

8. Heard Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner who would submit that, the accident taken place

on 28.10.2021 and on the same day, the driving license of the

petitioner was seized and handed over to the Regional Transport

Officer concerned, i.e., respondent herein. Without conducting

any enquiry under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

since the respondents has retained the driving license of the

petitioner which is impermissible or unlawful. Therefore, the

petitioner is entitled for a direction by way of mandamus.

Hence, the learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to

issue a direction to the respondents to hand over the driving

license to the petitioner pending decision to be taken in any

enquiry to be contemplated in this regard by the respondents or

pending decision of the criminal case, where the investigation

is yet to be completed.

9. However, Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Additional Government

Pleader

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top