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