Dhanabal.A vs Inspector of Police & Ors.

Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1, 2 and 4. Mr.P.Kannan Kumar, learned counsel

takes notice for R3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

Though this writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.01.2018 and consequently, seeking for returning

the original driving license of the petitioner bearing No. TN-41 2005 0001522, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned

proceedings dated 02.01.2018, as it is only a notice, calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry under the Motor Vehicles Act, that too,

on 12.01.2018. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already appeared for the enquiry. Therefore, it is for the

second respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, with which, this Court is not expressing any view, as of now.

However, insofar as the power to retain the driving license is concerned, the same issue has been considered by this Court on very many occasions

and hence, this writ petition is being disposed of, only by going into such issue alone.

The petitioner is a driver in the respondent Corporation. It is stated that the petitioner''s driving licence was seized on 28.12.2017, in pursuant to

an accident taken place on 26.12.2017 and followed by the registration of FIR in Crime No.448 of 2017 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of

IPC. It is stated that the respondent Corporation has initiated a disciplinary action on the petitioner and kept him under suspension pending

enquiry. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that the seizure of the license and retaining the same is erroneous merely because the criminal

case was registered against the petitioner in respect of an accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention relied on the

decision reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 100 (P.Sethuram vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport

Office, Dindigul) and a single Judge decision made in W.P.No.16958/2013 dated 01.07.2013 reported in 2013 Writ L.R.843 (S.Duraivelu vs.

The Regional Transport Officer, West Thambaram, Chennai & 2 others).

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 submitted that the license of the petitioner was seized on 28.12.2017 since an

accident had taken place on 26.12.2017, while the petitioner was driving the vehicle.

Heard both sides.

It is seen that the petitioner''s driving license was seized on 28.12.2017, pursuant to the accident that had taken place on 26.12.2017 followed

by the registration of the criminal case. It is further seen that the license of the petitioner has not been suspended so far. Even in respect of the

cases where the license was suspended, this Court in the above referred cases, has held that the authorities are not entitled to suspend the license

merely because the criminal case is registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get back the license, however, with

liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Hence, the respondents 1 & 2 are directed to return the driving license of the petitioner immediately on receipt of a copy of this order.

However, it shall not preclude the respondents from proceeding with any action against the petitioner, if any of the contingencies specified in

Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, or if any of the Rules as prescribed by the Central Government in pursuance of

Section 19(1)(f) of the Act, are violated.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.