1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.7720 of 2011 S.Ramesan ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Principal Secretary to Government Transport Department, Secretariat Government Estate, Chennai -2 2. Regional Transport Officer Kannyakumari District,Nagercoil 3. P.D.Dhas Former Regional Transport Officer Kannyakumari District, Nagercoil Residing at 64/H.I.G. Block IV Thamirapathi colony,Thiyagaraya Nagar Tirunelveli - 11 4. Mr.Ravi, Former Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I Regional Transport Office, Kannyakumari District Nagercoil Residing at 15-A, Thalayatham Bazar Kudiyatham, North Arcad ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner for the pecuniary loss, loss of employment and mental agony besides the irreparable loss occurred due to the dereliction of duty or willful negligence by the 2nd / 3rd and 4th respondents herein in the matter of illegal seizure of Driving Licence and to take necessary action against them. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subaharan for Ms.J.Balameenakshi For Respondents: Mr.S.Chandrasekaran,Government Advocate O R D E R After advancing arguments on the prayer for Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner for the pecuniary loss, loss of employment and mental agony besides the irreparable loss occurred due to the dereliction of duty or willful negligence by the 2nd / 3rd and 4th respondents herein in the matter of illegal seizure of Driving Licence and to take necessary action against them, sensing the mind of this Court, Mr.S.Subaharan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, has sought for an adjournment, this Court is not inclined to grant the same, considering the averments made in the supporting affidavit of this Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Pleadings disclose that the petitioner is working as a driver in State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division III. On 17.05.2009 and when he was on his wheels, driving a bus bearing Registration No. TN-74-N-0673, an accident occurred causing the death of a Motor Cyclist. A case in Keeriparai Police Station in Crime No. 36 of 2009 under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC was registered on 17.05.2009 and that the petitioner was placed under suspension pending investigation. 3. According to the petitioner, he was not responsible for the accident. On 18.05.2009, the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I, Regional Transport Office, Kannyakumari District, Nagercoil, the fourth respondent herein, who has been sued in his personal capacity, has received the driving licence from the police. On 29.05.2009, licence was sent to the Regional Transport Officer, Kannyakumari District, Nagercoil, the second respondent herein, who has been sued in this Writ Petition in his personal capacity. When the petitioner approached the second respondent on 09.06.2009, for return of his driving licence, which was not given. Subsequently, a show cause notice, vide his memo in No.15544/2009 dated 11.06.2009 was issued seeking for explanation, as to why the petitioner's driving licence should not be cancelled, as he was involved in a motor accident, citing Rule 19 of Tamilnadu Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. Pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 30.06.2009 explaining the manner in which the accident occurred. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that though an explanation, dated 30.06.2009 received, no orders were passed. Pending the said proceedings, the validity of the petitioner's licence expired on 14.07.2009. After much persuasion, the second respondent sent the petitioner's driving licence to the Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District, for renewal, after three months from the date, such renewal, has to be made. Lateron, the licence of the petitioner was renewed on 30.10.2009. Nevertheless, the licence was not returned to the petitioner. The criminal case registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal and that he was absolved of the charges of negligence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD).No. 2746 of 2010 before this Court and by an order dated 08.03.2010, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were quashed. It is further contended that even after the production of the copy of the order along with a representation, dated 07.04.2010, the licence which was seized, was not returned. It is the grievance of the petitioner that because of the negligence act of the Regional Transport Office, the petitioner has lost his 11 months salary, Casual Leave, Earned Leave, Religious Holidays and bonus, is given during festival season. It is also further contended that because of non-payment of premium, under the Star Health Insurance Scheme, the petitioner was not able to avail medical claim. As the driving licence of the petitioner was in illegal custody of the respondents 2 to 4 for nearly 11 months, the petitioner made a representation, dated 01.03.2011 seeking damages against them for dereliction of duty or misusing their official power. As there was no response, he has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief, as stated supra. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. Pleadings and materials on record shows that for causing the death of a Motor Cyclist, a case in Crime No. 36 of 2009 was registered on 17.05.2009 on the file of Keeriparai Police Station, Kannyakumari District, under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC against the petitioner. During investigation, the police department have verified the licence and the same is stated to have been given to the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I, Regional Transport Office, Kannyakumari District, Nagercoil, the fourth respondent herein, dated 18.05.2009. Thereafter, a memorandum has been issued to the petitioner to appear before the Regional Transport Officer, Kannyakumari District, Nagercoil, the second respondent herein and that the licence has also been forwarded. 7. As the petitioner was allegedly involved in a crime causing a death of Motor Cyclist, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, a show cause notice, dated 11.06.2009, has been issued to the writ petitioner calling for explanation as to why his driving licence should not be cancelled, for his involvement in a motor accident. Though the petitioner has submitted an explanation denying the accident, as per the averments made in the supporting affidavit, no orders have been passed and in the meanwhile, the driving licence was expired on 14.07.2009. 8. Pleadings disclose that though the licence had expired, after the commencement of the proceedings for suspension/cancellation, initiated under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, nevertheless, the licence has been renewed on 30.10.2009. Pleadings further disclose that when the petitioner challenged the proceedings initiated against him in W.P.(MD).No. 15544 of 2009, this Court, by an order dated 08.03.2010, allowed the same and subsequently, the licence has been released on 07.04.2010. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is a driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division III in the Thiruvattar Branch. Even as per the averments made in the supporting affidavit even though a criminal case in Crime No. 36 of 2009, under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC has been registered on 17.05.2009, the petitioner was not placed under suspension by the department. However, he has contended that he was not permitted to do his duty, as a driver, in the absence of the licence. 10. Though issue relating to suspension /cancellation of the licence was subject matter of a proceedings initiated under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and the rules framed thereunder, even as per the supporting affidavit, there was no cessation of master and servant relationship, as the petitioner was not placed under suspension, until it was set aside by this Court. Invoking the provisions, in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder, cannot be at any stretch imagination be contended to be a mala fide act, for the reason that a specific crime had been registered against the petitioner, under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, on 17.05.2009 for allegedly causing the death of the Motor Cyclist. No motive or ill will can be attributed for the bona fide action of the respondents, for initiating proceedings under the statutory provisions for suspension/cancellation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 11. Even according to to the petitioner, alleging that he has been denied salary, Casual Leave, Earn Leave etc., that would not give rise to cause for damages, and the contentions of the writ petitioner that there was a dereliction of duty or misuse of official power are wholly untenable. The allegation of misuse of power is liable to be rejected as it could be seen that the authorities have only taken recourse to law, which has been found as erroneous by this Court. 12. Even assuming that the exercise of power by the Licensing Authority to verify the holding driving licence has been done erroneously, such exercise has not been done out of motive or with any mala fide intention and it cannot be said to be dereliction of duty or misuse of official power. The contention that the petitioner was out of employment is baseless, for the reason that, even as per the averments at paragraphs 5 and 12 of the supporting affidavit, he was not suspended from duty. 13. Even assuming that the licence of the petitioner was under retained by the authorities for some time, pleadings disclose that it was renewed on 30.10.2009 and also, released on 07.04.2010, pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.(MD).No. 2746 of 2010, dated 08.03.2010. Even if the petitioner was not allowed to drive the bus, on account of retention of licence, was not placed under suspension, he can always seek for salary and other allowances, if eligible as per the service rules. There is no infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the relief of compensation, claimed in the nature of Mandamus is wholly misconceived. 14. For the reasons stated supra, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR vsgg To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government Transport Department,Secretariat Government Estate, Chennai -2 2. Regional Transport Officer Kannyakumari District,Nagercoil 3. P.D.Dhas, Former Regional Transport Officer Kannyakumari District, Nagercoil Residing at 64/H.I.G. Block IV Thamirapathicolony, Thiyagaraya Nagar,Tirunelveli - 11 4. Mr.Ravi, Former Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I Regional Transport Office,Kannyakumari District, Nagercoil Residing at 15-A, Thalayatham Bazar Kudiyatham, North Arcad (Now Vellore Dist) 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 22892; DM::2011:JULY::18:: W.P.(MD).No.7720 of 2011 13.07.2011 4P:6C: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/