S. 19 MV Act | Regional Transport Authority Cannot Pre-Judge Guilt Even Before Filing Of Final Report By Police: Madras High Court

Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai bench was dealing with a batch of pleas seeking directions to the Regional Transport Officer to return the driving license seized by the officials following the registration of criminal cases against the petitioners.

The petitioners, who were drivers in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation were charged with Section 304 (A) IPC for causing death by negligence following accidents. The police seized the driver's licenses and forwarded the same to the Regional Transport Officers concerned. The RTOs then retained these driving licenses.

The petitioners argued that the final reports were yet to be filed in the criminal cases. They also contended that they were not convicted by any criminal court and had not committed any offense under the Motor Vehicle Act.

The Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that S. 304(A) of IPC, being a cognizable offence, the authority was empowered to suspend the licenses as per S. 19 of the MV Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor vehicle Rules 1989 after giving reasonable opportunity. It was further submitted that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners but instead of replying to the same, they had approached the court.

The court observed that a division bench of the High Court had in P.Sethuraman Vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer had held that the seizing of license was immediately after the accident and had thus preceded the issue of show cause notice. However, the court noted that in S.Krishnan Vs The Licensing Authority, another division bench had observed that S. 19 gave power to the authority to disqualify the license when satisfied that the person had used the vehicle resulting in a cognizable offense.

The court agreed with a view taken by a single judge wherein the judge had observed that the power of seizure by the police under S. 206 of the MV Act was limited only where an offense had been committed under Sections 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194 (c) 194(d) and 194(e) of the Act. Thus, the court noted that the power of seizure was not automatic and reasons had to be recorded while exercising the power.

The court noted that the authorities could initiate action under S. 19 of the MV Act only based on a report by the Police and thus, merely on the registration of an FIR, the police officer did not have any power to seize the license. The court added that of any action was to be taken, the police had to forward a report to the concerned RTA, who after being satisfied that any of the contingencies as provided in the Act exists, and after giving an opportunity to the license holder, will pass appropriate orders.

The court thus directed the RTO to return the driving licenses of the petitioner drivers. The court added that it was open for the police to forward the relevant materials to the RTO after filing the final report and the RTO shall then take appropriate actions as stipulated under the MV Act.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. D.Ramya, Mr.S.Arunachalam, Mr.A.Balaji

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader, Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader, Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanidhi Government Advocate (Crl Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 50

Case Title: P Prabhu v Regional Transport Officer

Case No: WP(MD) No. 29721 of 2023

Click here to read/download the judgment