Driving license cannot be seized merely on pendency of criminal proceedings post-accident; requires conviction.

2.The Licensing Authority-cum-Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore – South, Coimbatore – 641 004. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent herein to return back the original driving license of the petitioner bearing No.TN-4020130000156 within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Padmanabhan For Respondents : Mr.V.Meganathan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)[R1]

Ms.C.Meera Arumugam Additional Government Pleader [R2]

*****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 2^nd respondent to return the petitioner’s driving license bearing No.TN-4020130000156, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Mr.V.Meganathan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), accepts notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent and Ms.C.Meera Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

3. The petitioner claims that he is a driver employed with the State Transport Corporation. According to him, the bus which the petitioner was driving met with an accident and a First Information Report was registered against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, arbitrarily and illegally, the respondents have seized the driving license of the petitioner on account of the said accident. He seeks return of the driving license through this writ petition. He had earlier given a representation seeking return of the driving license. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Sethuram v. The Licencing Authority, Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul, [2010 WLR 100] in support of his contention that mere pendency of criminal proceedings will not enable the respondents to seize the driving license of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only if the petitioner has been convicted then the respondents are having authority to seize the driving license.

5. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner’s representation as stated supra is considered on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for return of his driving license bearing No.TN-4020130000156 in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Sethuram v. The Licencing Authority, Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul, [2010 WLR 100] and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four (4)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.