K.Sathiyananthan vs Inspector Of Police & Anr.

Mr.Durai Gunasekaran, learned Government Counsel, accepts notice for the first respondent. Dr.R.Gouri, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for the second respondent.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to return his original driving licence bearing No.TN36 20010000647.

A criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.444 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 106(1), 125(a) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the course of the investigation, the first respondent seized the petitioner’s driving licence and forwarded it to the second respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has no statutory authority to seize the driving licence and that such power can be exercised only in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in K.Senthilkumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Tirupur District and others, reported in MANU/TN/0133/2023.

The learned State Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the driving licence was seized by invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and therefore, the action cannot be said to be without statutory authority.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

This Court, in K.Senthilkumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Tirupur District and others, after considering the scope of Sections 19(1A) and 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held that the power of the police to seize a driving licence is limited to the circumstances specifically enumerated under Section 206 of the Act. It was further held that seizure of a driving licence is not automatic and can be resorted to only after recording reasons in writing showing that the statutory requirements are satisfied. The Court also held that proceedings under Section 19 of the Act can be initiated by the Licensing Authority on the basis of a report submitted by the police, after giving the licence holder an opportunity of being heard, and that mere registration of an FIR for offences outside the Motor Vehicles Act does not, by itself, confer power on the police to seize the driving licence. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge held that the seizure of the driving licence in that case was without authority of law and directed its return, while reserving liberty to the Licensing Authority to proceed under Section 19 of the Act in accordance with law.

The principles laid down in the above decision squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to return the petitioner’s original driving licence bearing No. TN36 20010000647, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is, however, open to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No costs.