BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED :17.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

K.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner

Vs

1. The Regional Transport Officer,

Transport Department,

Theni District,

Theni.

2. The Inspector of Police,

Theni Police Station,

Theni.

Crime No. 721/2025. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith return original Driving License of the petitioner

bearing No. TN 60 19960001290 to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Rahul

For Respondents : Mrs.K.Malathi

Additional Government Pleader for R1

Mr.A.Albert James

Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for R2

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to forthwith return original Driving License of the petitioner bearing No.

TN 60 19960001290 to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. On 05.12.2025, the petitioner met with an accident, due to which an FIR was registered in Crime No.721/2025 and thereafter, the licence of the petitioner was seized and retained by the first respondent. In this regard, the petitioner has sent a representation, but they have not returned the licence. Further, criminal proceedings are also going on.

3. Under similar circumstances, in the case of K.Perumal vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Virudhunagar (W.P.(MD) No.9605 of

2022, dated 12.05.2022), this Court has observed as follows:

" 7.This Court perused the Motor Vehicles Act and unable to get anything of the power of the respondents to impound the driving licence. On the other hand, the first respondent has the power to cancel the license, under certain circumstances. In the present case, not even a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, the driving licence was seized on 02.04.2022 and till date retained by the first respondent without any authority. At this juncture, this Court would like to extract the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No. 176 of 2009 dealing with the powers of the authorities to impound the driving licence as below:-

'5.Therefore the question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the respondent has a power to impound the driving licence of a person involved in a road traffic accident.

6.Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, empowers the Licensing Authority to disqualify a person for holding or obtaining any driving licence for a specified period or to revoke any such licence. Similarly, a Court which convicts a person for an offence under the Act, is empowered by Section 20(1) to disqualify such person from holding a driving licence for a specific period. Section 21 makes a driving licence become suspended, if the holder of the licence had been previously convicted of an offence punishable under Section 184 and a case had been registered against him on the allegation of causing the death or grievous injury to one or more persons by dangerous driving. Section 22 empowers the Court to cancel or suspend the driving licence, upon conviction of a person for an offence under Section 184.

7.Obviously, Sections 20 and 22 are not applicable to the case on hand, since the action impugned in the writ petition did not arise out of the disqualification ordered by a Court. There is no allegation that the appellant was previously convicted for an offence under Section 184. Therefore, Section 21 also has no application to the case on hand Consequently, the only provision to which the respondent could restore to, is Section 19.

8.Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as follows:-

“19.Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such lince.

(1) If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder o