IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

M.Palanivel Petitioner(s)

Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police

T2 T1W Chrompet Police Station,

Chennai-64.

2.The Licensing Authority Cum

Regional Transport Officer,

Tambaram, Chennai-45

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

directing the 2^nd Respondent herein to return the original driving license

(DL No.TN21 19990002465) to the petitioner forthwith.

For Petitioner(s): M/s. K.Hariharan

H. Vallabh Narayan

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Shajahan, SGP (R2)

Mr.V.Meghanathan, GA, (R1)

O R D E R

Heard Mr. K.Hariharan for the petitioner and Mr.V.Meghanathan for the

1^st respondent and Mr. M.Shajahan for the 2^nd respondent.

2. The petitioner is a driver with the Metropolitan Transport Corporation.

The petitioner was driving vehicle bearing No. TN01-AN-5062. While the vehicle was plying near the Tambaram GST Road, the petitioner alleges that a motor-cyclist dashed against the bus and fell down and passed away in the accident.

3.Taking note of the fatality of the accident, the 1^st respondent registered a case in Crime No. 334 of 2025. The FIR was registered under Sections 106 and

281 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023.

4.During the course of the investigation, the petitioner surrendered his original license to the 1^st respondent. On 14.10.2025, the 1^st respondent sent the license to the 2^nd respondent to initiate action. The 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice on 24.10.2025 calling upon the petitioner as to why action should not be taken for his alleged negligent act of driving. The petitioner gave a response on 03.11.2025. Despite the receipt of the response, the license of the petitioner seems to have been suspended.

5.Mr.Hariharan relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in P.Sethuraman -vs- Licensing Authority reported in 2010 WLR Page No.100 pleads that in case of a fatal accident, action with regard to the license of the driver of the offending vehicle can be initiated only after the criminal proceedings have been concluded. He states that in this case nothing further has progressed beyond the filing of the FIR.

6.Mr.V.Meghanathan appearing for the 1^st respondent states that immediately after the registration of the FIR, the concerned Station Officer has initiated an investigation and the same is pending. He accepts that the license was received by the 1^st respondent and forwarded to the 2^nd respondent for appropriate action.

7.Mr.M.Shajahan appearing for 2^nd respondent states that a request was made by the 1^st respondent on 16.10.2025 enclosing the FIR. The 2^nd respondent had perused the same and concluded that the petitioner is facing a criminal proceedings under Section 281, 125(a) and 106(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023. In terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, as the 2^nd respondent is the Licensing Authority, he had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted his reply. The 2^nd respondent, after perusal of the reply, did not find any merits in the reply and consequently, passed an order revoking /suspending the license of the petitioner from 16.10.2025 to 15.01.2026. On the strength of these proceedings, Mr.M.Shajahan urges that the writ petition deserves dismissal.

8.I have carefully considered the submission of both sides and also I have gone through the records.

9.As early as in 2010, a Division Bench of this Court in P.Sethuraman -vs- Licensing Authority reported in 2010 WLR Page No.100 has held as follows:-

“8. 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 for reasons to be recorded in writing.

9. But in t