1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN Writ Petition (MD).No.1377 of 2011 K.Palanisamy . . Petitioner Vs. The Regional Transport Officer The Regional Transport Office Pudukottai. .. Respondent Prayer:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to return the petitioner's driving license No.TN 65 19840000660 to him forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Additional Government Pleader ORDER The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus directing the respondent to return the petitioner's driving license No.TN 19840000660 to him forthwith. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as a Driver in the Madurai branch of Karaikudi Region. He was having a driving license bearing No.TN 19840000660. On 20.01.2011, while he was driving the bus bearing registration No.TN-63-N-1145, the said bus met with an accident near Punakulam which is 10 kms before Kandarvakottai. Thereafter, a case in Crime No.19 of 2011 was registered by the Kandarvakottai Police Station. As a result of which, his driving license was impounded by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent on 24.01.2011 and even thereafter, there was no reply from the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief as stated earlier. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said accident took place only because of the gross negligence on the part of the victim involved and the petitioner is no way responsible for the said accident. He further submits that the respondent has not followed the statutory rules before impounding the driving license of the petitioner and that the petitioner was not provided with any opportunity to submit his explanation. He further submits that the petitioner cannot go to job without his driving license. Hence, he prays for a direction to the respondent to return the driving license of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Mr.P.Thilakkumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader, took notice for the respondent and he also submitted that till date, no proceedings are initiated against the petitioner under the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Heard Both sides. 6. The legal question arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the respondent has power to impound the driving license of a person involved in a road traffic accident as per Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the Act) which empowers the licensing authority to disqualify a person for holding or obtaining any driving license for a specified period or to revoke any such licence. Further, Section 20(1) of the Act empowers to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence for a specified period when he has been convicted for an offence under the Act. Section 21 of the Act makes a driving licence become suspended, if the holder of the licence had been previously convicted for an offence punishable under Section 184 of the Act 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. 7. In this case, the petitioner's driving license was impounded by the respondent without adhering statutory rules. Clause 19(1) of the Act envisages the licensing authority to give an opportunity of being heard to a license holder before impounding the driving license. The licensing authority has not followed the procedure of being heard the petitioner before impounding the license. 8. The issue which arise for consideration in the present matter has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in P.Sethuram v. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul reported in 2010 WLR 100, wherein in paragraph 9, it has been held as follows; "But in the case on hand, the licence of the appellant was impounded or retained by the police immediately after the accident. Thereafter, the respondent issued the show cause notice under Section 19(1) of the Act, after getting a report from the police. Therefore, the impounding of the licence has actually preceded the issue of show cause notice." 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court holds the field. 10. This Court has held in various judgments that without initiating proceedings against a person under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the Licensing Authority has no power to retain or impound the driving license and the act of the licensing authority in retaining the driving license is illegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 11. In this case also, admittedly no action has been taken against the petitioner by the respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Nevertheless, the respondent is retaining the driving license of the petitioner, which action has been deprecated by this Court in various judgments. 12. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to return the driving license of the petitioner immediately on production of a copy of this order and the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for violation of the Motor Vehicles Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Regional Transport Officer The Regional Transport Office Pudukottai. +1cc to Mr.Arunachalam, Advocate, Sr.No.11126 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 11573 jikr SMA/23.03.2011/4C/3P Order made in W.P.(MD).No.1377 of 2011 03.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/