1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.2846 of 2011 S.Manmadan : Petitioner Vs. 1. The Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North, Madurai District. 2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai Zone, Madurai. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to return the licence of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.Chamundi Bose For Respondents : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader ****** O R D E R ******* Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. I have heard Mr.Chamundi Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The present Writ Petition is laid for a Mandamus, directing the first respondent to return the licence to the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a driver under the second respondent Transport Corporation. On 28.01.2011 an accident took place. One Manikandan, who was driving in the opposite direction, was responsible for the accident. However, a case has been registered against the petitioner under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code by the Omatchikulam Police Station, Madurai District in Crime No.94 of 2011. The driving licence of the petitioner was also seized by the first respondent. The same has not been returned and hence, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the first respondent has no power to seize the licence. The said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 fact could not be disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court has held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the first respondent has no power to seize the driving licence. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to return the licence seized from the petitioner forthwith. However, the first respondent is at liberty to take action against the petitioner, after following due process of law. 7. The Writ Petition stands ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North, Madurai District. 2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai Zone, Madurai. + 1 cc to M/s.Kara Associates, Chamundi Bose, Advocate, SR No.6003 Order made in W.P.(MD).No.2846 of 2011 Dated: 11.03.2011 SML RJ/18.3.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/