Madras High Court
E.Karthiresan vs The Regional Transport Officer And on 27 July, 2026
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
E.Kathiresan
S/o.Elumalai ... Petitioner
vs.
The Regional Transport Officer and
Licensing Authority
Coimbatore Central
Dr.Balasundaram Road
Coimbatore – 641 018. … Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to
the order dated 20.07.2026 passed by the respondent in File
No.36190/B4/2026 disqualifying the petitioner’s original Driving License for
a period from 13.07.2026 to 12.08.2026 and consequently, direct the
respondent to return forthwith his original driving license bearing Number
TN32Z19900000141, without any endorsement and within a specified time.
For Petitioner : Ms.G.K.Dharshini
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan
Government Counsel
*****
Page Nos.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
ORDER
Mr. M. Sivavarthanan, learned Government Counsel, accepts notice
for the respondent.
2. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 20.06.2026
passed by the respondent, whereby he has been disqualified from holding a
driving licence for the period from 13.07.2026 to 12.08.2026.
3. The petitioner is a bus driver. A criminal case has been registered
against him in Crime No.289 of 2026 for offences punishable under Sections
281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), on the
allegation that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in
a fatal accident. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
seized the petitioner’s driving licence and forwarded the same to the
respondent–Licensing Authority for initiating proceedings for
disqualification or revocation of the licence. Thereafter, the respondent,
purportedly in exercise of the power under Section 19(1-A) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”), passed the impugned order.
Page Nos.2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. The learned Government Counsel would contend that the act
attributed to the petitioner constitutes an offence under Section 184(f) of the
MV Act. It is submitted that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of
hearing and that, upon being satisfied that he had committed the said offence,
the respondent was justified in passing the impugned order under Section
19(1-A) of the MV Act.
6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent
could have invoked Section 19(1-A) of the MV Act in the facts of the present
case.
7. Section 19(1-A) of the MV Act provides that where a driving
licence has been forwarded to the Licensing Authority under sub-section (4)
of Section 206, the Licensing Authority, after giving the holder of the driving
licence an opportunity of being heard, may either discharge him or, for
detailed reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order disqualifying such
person from holding or obtaining any licence to drive all or any class or
Page Nos.3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
description of vehicles specified in the licence—
(a) for a first offence, for a period of three months; and
(b) for a second or subsequent offence, by revoking the driving
licence.
8. Section 206(4) of the MV Act provides that a police officer or any
other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has
reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed an offence
under any of Sections 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194-C, 194-D or 194-E of the
MV Act, seize the driving licence held by such driver and forward it to the
Licensing Authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under
9. A conjoint reading of Sections 19(1-A) and 206(4) of the MV Act
makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the Licensing Authority under Section
19(1-A) is attracted when the driving licence is seized and forwarded under
Section 206(4) on the ground that the driver is believed to have committed one
or more of the offences specifically enumerated therein. Thus, the forwarding
of the licence under Section 206(4) in relation to an offence specified therein
Page Nos.4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
is the statutory foundation for exercise of power under Section 19(1-A).
10. The coordinate bench of this court , vide order dated 07.02.2023
in W.P.No.3393 of 2023, has held that the seizure of the licence to take action
under Section 19 is not a mandatory. Irrespective of licence being surrendered
or produced before the authorities, the action can be initiated by the authorities
under Section 19 on the report submitted by the police. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that merely on the basis of the FIR registered, particularly in the
other IPC offences, the police officer cannot have power to seize the licence. If
at all any action is contemplated under Section 19, they may forward a report
to the concerned RTA to take action under Section 19 of the Act. On such
report the Licensing Authority is satisfied any of the contingencies in clauses
1(a) to (h) of Section 19 and sub-clause 1A of the Act and after giving an
opportunity to the holder of the licence may pass an order as contemplated in
Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the Police Officer has no authority to seize
the driving license, and he can only forward a report to the Respondent for
taking action under Section 19(1) of MV Act.
Page Nos.5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
11. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the
petitioner’s driving licence was seized and forwarded to the respondent in
connection with Crime No.289 of 2026 registered for offences punishable
under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the BNS. Neither of these offences finds
place in Section 206(4) of the MV Act. There is also nothing on record to
indicate that, at the time of seizure and forwarding of the licence, the
Investigating Officer had invoked Section 184 of the MV Act or recorded that
he had reason to believe that the petitioner had committed an offence under
any of the provisions enumerated in Section 206(4). Therefore , the seizure of
license by the Police Officer is vitiated for want of authority .
12. It is true that the respondent now contends that the conduct alleged
against the petitioner would also constitute an offence under Section 184(f) of
the MV Act. However, the existence of the jurisdictional requirement under
Section 206(4) cannot be supplied subsequently by the Licensing Authority.
For exercise of power under Section 19(1-A), the licence must have been
seized and forwarded in the manner contemplated under Section 206(4). In the
absence of material demonstrating that the licence was so seized and
forwarded for an offence specified in Section 206(4), the respondent could not
Page Nos.6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
have assumed jurisdiction under Section 19(1-A) merely by subsequently
treating the alleged conduct as falling under Section 184 of the MV Act.
13. There is yet another infirmity in the impugned order. The
petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation to the show-cause notice
disputing the allegations and the proposed action. Section 19(1-A) expressly
requires the Licensing Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing and, if it
proposes to disqualify the licence holder, to record detailed reasons in writing.
The requirement of recording reasons necessarily entails consideration of the
explanation offered by the licence holder.
14. A perusal of the impugned order does not disclose any
consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner. Nor does it assign
reasons as to why those objections were unacceptable or on what material the
respondent arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had committed an
offence under Section 184(f) of the MV Act. A mere conclusion that the
petitioner had committed the offence, without dealing with his explanation
and without recording reasons supporting such conclusion, does not satisfy
the statutory requirement under Section 19(1-A).
Page Nos.7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
15. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained on two
grounds. Firstly, the jurisdictional requirement for invoking Section 19(1-A),
namely seizure and forwarding of the driving licence under Section 206(4) in
relation to an offence specified therein, is not shown to have been satisfied.
Secondly, the impugned order does not disclose consideration of the
petitioner’s explanation or the detailed reasons contemplated under Section
19(1-A) of the MV Act.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated 20.06.2026 passed by the respondent is hereby quashed. The respondent
is directed to return the petitioner’s driving licence forthwith.
17. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the
competent authority from taking such action as may be permissible in law
against the petitioner, if the statutory requirements for initiation of such
proceedings are otherwise satisfied. No costs.
27.07.2026
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
mk
Note: Upload forthwith
Page Nos.8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
To
The Regional Transport Officer and
Licensing Authority
Coimbatore Central
Dr.Balasundaram Road
Coimbatore – 641 018.
Page Nos.9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
mk
W.P.No.29477 of 2026
27.07.2026
Page Nos.10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
