BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and W.M.P.(MD).No.649 of 2026 M.Chelladurai ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Regional Transport Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Transport Department, Thoothukudi.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi PS Central Police Station, Thoothukudi.

Crime No.313 of 2025. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith return the petitioner's original Driving License bearing No.TN-33 19970002124 to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For R-1 : Mr.S,Shanmugavel, Additional Government Pleader For R-2 : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith return the petitioner's original Driving License bearing No.TN-33 19970002124 to the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited. The original driving licence of the petitioner was seized by the second respondent on 26.11.2025 alleging that the bus bearing Registration No.TN 33 N 3535, driven by the petitioner on 23.11.2025, was involved in a fatal accident resulting in the death of a pedestrian, pursuant to which an FIR was registered in Crime No.313 of 2025, and thereafter, his driving licence was handed over to the first respondent. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 31.12.2025, however, the same has not been considered till date. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

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