Rajdhani Motor Training School ... vs The Commissioner Cum Secretary ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 739 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged discrimination of State Transport Authority with the members of petitioner, Motor Driving Training Schools, in obtaining learners as well as permanent driving licenses for the candidates who obtain training from the respective schools and the respondent No. 11. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the directions stipulated in annexure P-1 to P-4 banning the entry of the members of the school to the motor licensing offices and still allowing respondent No. 11 not only entry in the offices but also permitting it to issue learner"s licenses for its trainees and others.

2. The petitioner also alleged that a number of motor training school are functioning un-authorizedly without approval/licenses with the connivance of the functionaries of Transport Department whereas the respondents 1 to 10 are not allowing various other motor car training institutes, members of the petitioner, to get the learner license and permanent licenses for their candidates.

3. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner is a society established under the provisions of Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 read with Rule 24 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 for carrying on the business of imparting instructions to the candidates in driving of motor vehicles and matter connected therewith." According to the petitioner, its members hold genuine licenses in prescribed form 11 of the rules. The members of the petitioner are stated to be maintaining records including the registration in form 14 under the mandate of Rule 27. Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 is as under:

24. Driving Schools and Establishments:- 1) No person shall establish or maintain any driving school or establishment for imparting instructions for hire or reward in driving motor vehicles without a license in Form 11 granted by the licensing authority.

2) An application for the grant or renewal of a license under Sub-rule (1) shall be made in Form 12 or Form 13, as the case may be, to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area in which the school or establishment is situated and shall be accompanied by appropriate fee as specified in Rule 32.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this rule and Rules 25 to 28 "licensing authority" means an officer not below the rank of the Regional Transport Officer of the Motor Vehicles Department established under Section 213.

3) The licensing authority shall, when considering an application for the grant or renewal of a license under this rule, have regard to the following matters, namely:

i) the applicant and the staff working under him are of good moral character and are qualified to give driving instructions.

ii) the premises where the school or establishment is proposed to be conducted is either owned by the applicant or is taken on lease by him or is hired in his name and it has adequate provision for conducting lecture and demonstration of models besides adequate parking area for the vehicles meant to be used for imparting instructions in driving:

Provided that in respect of schools or establishments imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles or matters connected therewith immediately before the commencement of these rules, the licensing authority may permit the conducting of instruction facilities in the same premises where the school or establishment is housed for a period of six months, notwithstanding the fact that the premises do not satisfy the conditions laid down in this clause;

iii) the financial resources of the proposed school or establishment are sufficient to provide for its continued maintenance;

iv) the applicant owns and maintains a minimum of one motor vehicle each of the type in which instruction is imparted in the school or establishment;

v) the vehicles are available exclusively for purposes of imparting instruction and all such vehicles, except motorcycles, are fitted with dual control facility to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle;

vi) the applicant maintains the following apparatus, equipments and other requirements namely:

a) a black board,

b) a road plan board with necessary model signals and charts;

c) traffic signs chart,

d) chart on automatic signals and signals given by traffic controllers where there are no automatic signals,

e) a service chart depicting a detailed view of all the components of a motor vehicle.

f) engine gear box, (brake shoe and drums) (except where the applicant desires to impart instruction in the driving of motor cycles only),

g) puncture kit with tyre lever, wheel brace, jack and tyre pressure gauge,

h) spanners (a set each of fix spanners, box spanners, pliers, screw drivers, screw spanners, and hammer),

i) driving instructions manual,

j) benches and tables for trainees and work bench,

k) (* * *)

l) (* * *)

Provided that where the applicant is unable to maintain a projector and screen, it shall be sufficient if arrangements are made by the applicant for audio-visual demonstration or road safety by means of pre-recorded video cassettes through television or other similar display equipment,

m) a collection of books on automobile mechanism, driving, road safety, traffic

regulations, laws relating to motor vehicles and related subjects

n) a fully equipped first-aid box for use in emergency at the premises;

vii) (* * *)

viii) the applicant or any member of the staff employed by him for imparting instructions possesses the following qualifications, namely:

a) a minimum educational qualification of a pass in the 10th standard,

b) a minimum driving experience of five years in addition to a certificate in a course in motor mechanics or any other higher qualification in mechanical engineering from an institution established by the Central or a State Government or from an institution recognized by the Board of Technical Education of a State Government,

c) thorough knowledge of traffic signs specified in the Schedule to the Act and the regulations made under Section 118,

d) ability to demonstrate and to explain the functions of different components, parts of the vehicles,

e) adequate knowledge of English or the regional language of the region in which the school or establishment is situated:

Provided that any person who has served as an instructor for a period of not less than five years immediately before the commencement of these rules, is exempted from the requirements of this sub-clause.

4) The licensing authority may, on receipt of an application under Sub-rule (2) and after satisfying that the applicant has complied with the requirements of Sub-rule (3), grant or review a license in Form 11.

5) No application for license shall be refused by the licensing authority unless the applicant is given an opportunity of being heard and reasons for such refusal are given in writing by the licensing authority.

4. The petitioner contended that its members for carrying on the license business of imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles have invested huge amounts of money in procuring and maintaining various types of vehicles and in employing trained drivers, training instructors and training equipments and other establishments like class rooms and other requisite facilities. The training schools have to observe conditions as stipulated in Rule 27 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which is as under:

27. General conditions to be observed by the holder of a license-The holder of a license granted under Rule 24 shall,-

a) maintain on an annual basis, a register in Form 14 and an alphabetical list of the names of the students admitted during the year;

b) conduct the training course according to the syllabus specified in Rule 31;

(* * *)

d) issue to every student who has completed the course a certificate in Form 5;

e) submit to the licensing authority which granted the license such information or return as may be called for by it from time to time for the purposes of this Chapter;

f) not shift the school or establishment from the premises mentioned in the license without the prior approval in writing of the licensing authority, which granted the license;

g) keep the premises of the school or establishment and the record and registers maintained by it at all reasonable times open for inspection by the licensing authority or by any person authorized in this behalf by the licensing authority;

h) exhibit in a conspicuous manner on all the motor vehicles used for imparting instructions the names, full address of the school or establishment and the telephone number, if any, in bold letters;

i) maintain a record separately for each trainee showing the number of driving hours spent every day in Form 15;

j) display at a prominent place in its office the following:

(i) the license in original issued to the school or establishment by the licensing authority, and

(ii) the names and addresses of instructors employed by the school or establishment;

k) not act in a manner calculated to mislead any person making an application to receive instructions from the school or establishment as to his ability to procure a license for such person other than in accordance with these rules or to connive with any person in acts of commission or omission with a view to circumventing the provisions of this Chapter.

5. According to the petitioner, the schools for imparting training in motor driving are established and regulated in accordance with Section 12 of Motor Vehicle Act. According to petitioner all the motor driving training schools have to comply with the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the Motor Vehicle Act and the rules framed there under. In the circumstances, banning the entry of the officials of various motor driving training schools and allowing the officials of respondent No. 11 to enter various offices and obtain the licenses for its students is discriminatory and there is no rational basis for discrimination between the members of petitioner society and the respondent No. 11. According to petitioner such discrimination is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the statutory restrictions that the motor vehicles licenses can be issued only by respondent Nos. 1 to 10, the powers have been given to respondent No. 11 to issue licenses and to conduct the test of non-transport licenses and such licensees have been exempted from further test on the basis of driving certificate issued by respondent No. 11.

6. The petitioner contended that by extending such powers to respondent No. 11, members of the petitioner's society have been discriminated and restrictions on the members of the petitioner society not to enter into the public offices of the Zonal office of Transport Department for having the licenses of its candidates, the members of the petitioner have been deprived of their livelihood. It was asserted by the petitioner that a notice dated 4th September, 1995 was given to Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Transport Department, but instead of correcting his action, the members of the petitioner's society are subjected to acts of reprisal and as a retaliation the respondent No. 1 has totally discarded the members of the petitioner's society for issue and renewal of licenses without any justification. In order to enforce such actions, rather guidelines have been issued and under instructions the driving licenses are to be made only by the respondents No. 1 to 10. According to the petitioner, adherence to the directions, a number of schools of the petitioners society are suffering grave business losses on account of the acts of omission and commission and the acts of respondents are placing unreasonable restrictions on the petitioner's right to carry on trade and business and violating the fundamental rights of the members of the petitioner's society whereas respondents are giving extra advantage the respondent No. 11 and are also harassing the members of the petitioner society.

7. In these circumstances, the petitioners have impugned the action of respondents, the banning of entrance of the proprietor or various representatives of the members of petitioner's society into the offices of respondents for procuring the learner licenses and permanent licenses of its candidates and not allowing them to take the test of competence and not allowing the members of the petitioner's society to process the application of their respective trainees and candidates for procuring licenses.

8. The writ petition was contested by respondents and an affidavit of Shri Rajesh Somal, Joint Director, Transport, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 was filed." It was contended that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, licenses can be granted in accordance with the rules. Motor driving training schools to impart training to the public for driving proficiencies in various types of motor vehicles can also be run in accordance with the provision of the Act and the rules framed there under. It was contended that Rule 24 of 1989 Rules does not permit motor training schools to issue the licenses themselves." Relying on Form 11 of 1989 rules, it was asserted that the licenses are limited to imparting of instructions in driving for the category of vehicles for which the licenses are issued.

9. According to respondent Nos. 1 to 10, for the purpose of obtaining a driving license under the Act and Rules, a practical test under Rule 30 is contemplated of any person seeking to obtain a driving license which is mandatory except for those individuals who possesses a driving certificate issued by an institution recognized in this regard by the State Government in terms of the proviso to Section 9(3) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. It was categorically stated in 1996 by the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 when the counter affidavit was filed that no such institution has been recognized by the Delhi Government though for this purpose the respondent No. 11 was under consideration.

10. The respondents also pleaded that for the purpose of practical test, the rules do not permit for providing a motor vehicle by the licensing authority to take the test rather the person taking the test is liable to bring his own vehicle and for those persons who do not have a motor vehicle and who desire to take a test for obtaining a license, the facilities are provided at the Government Motor Training School at Loni Road, Shahadara. On successfully taking the practical test, applicant becomes entitled for a driving license in terms of Section 14 of the Act, 1988.

11. Regarding some of the alleged motor training institutes which were not licensed and which were allegedly functioning in connivance with the officials of the respondents, it was stated that 79 establishments were inspected out of which seven establishments were found to be functioning more or less properly and 64 establishments were found not to be maintaining their records properly as per the rules and regulations and irregularities were noticed in maintenance of statutory form No. 14 and 15 under the Rule of 1989. The allegation of discrimination and running of the institutions in connivance of the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 was not admitted.

12. Refuting the pleas raised by respondents, a rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner and reliance was also placed on a decision of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA NO. 1875 of 1994, titled Shri I.S. Khanna and Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. where the question involved was for the promotion of Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector and Motor Licensing Officer.

13. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, the respondents have filed additional affidavits and reports. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, additional affidavit, report and documents filed by the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rungta, has restricted his submission to no action being taken against the unauthorized motor driving schools and that the respondents should check the running of unauthorized motor driving schools which is the statutory duty of the respondents. He contended that from the record it is evident that there are unauthorised motor driving training schools but no steps have been taken to ensure that these schools are not being run." Learned Counsel also contended that the petitioner cannot be discriminated with respondent No. 11 as respondent No. 11 has been authorized to issue even driving licenses contrary to statutory requirement of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

14. Regarding the permission granted to respondent No. 11 to issue the licenses for motor driving vehicles, the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 in their counter affidavit dated 8th January, 1996 categorically asserted that respondent No. 11 does not have power to issue licenses or to represent licensee and these powers delegated to respondent No. 11 were withdrawn with effect from 14th November, 1994 by the Act 54 of 1994 and consequently respondent No. 11 is being treated like any and other licensees. The relevant assertion of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 is as under:

It is submitted that the respondent No. 11 has not been given the power to issue license or to represent licensee and Section 9 Sub-section 3(b) under which the powers were given, under motor vehicle act, to conduct the test of non transport licensees and such licensees were exempted from further tests under Rule 13 if they possess driving certificate issued by AAUI; these powers delegated to AAUI have now been withdrawn by the Act 54 of 1994 Section 7 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Consequently the respondent No. 11 is being treated alike with the other licensees.

15. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that by order dated November 3, 1998 respondents were directed to identify the unauthorised schools/colleges which were continuing imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles and to submit a report in this regard. The respondents filed a report dated January 30, 1999 stipulating that a survey was carried out in association with the Delhi traffic police, Delhi police authorities, officers of the Department of Transport and of the Enforcement Wing in the said department in addition to the motor licensing officers of the Department of Transport. During the course of inspection 37 schools were identified which had been established without an appropriate approval/licenses under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It was also stated in the report that the process of identification of such schools is the continuing process and consequent upon identification, the action as contemplated under law including, seizure of vehicles, prosecution and cancellation/cancellation of registration of the vehicle being used for imparting training shall be taken.

16. A report dated 21st April, 1999 was also filed stipulating that 30 more schools have been identified which had been established without an appropriate approval/licenses under the act. And it was stated that the total number of such schools is 67 and a list of such schools will also produced. It was also contended that letters have been issued to the Deputy Commissioner of police to initiate a time bound action to ensure the closure of these unauthorised schools.

17. An additional affidavit dated February 25, 2002 has been filed deposing that letters have been received from Deputy Commissioners of police indicating that no school is running unauthorisedly and in some areas the schools have already applied for proper approval and have filed application for grant of licenses. It was also disclosed that 48 vehicles were identified for imparting training unauthorisedly which have been Challaned by the Enforcement wing of the Transport Department and the persons who were being trained on these vehicles have also been challaned because such persons were learning without the learner's license. Copies of such challans were also produced by the respondents.

18. In fresh inspection conducted by the respondents it transpired that many unauthorised schools were closed and their number was reduced to only 32 schools. Further action was taken by the respondents to identify their vehicles on which the training was imparted for taking action against them in accordance with law.

19. From this it is apparent that it cannot be inferred that the unauthorised schools were running with the connivance of respondent Nos. 1 to 10. A driving School is required to have a vehicle with dual controls, qualified instructors and maintenance of apparatus and equipments as mentioned in the rules. The respondents have already taken action against the schools which are unauthorised and consequently no further directions are required against the respondents in this regard.

20. Regarding the discrimination in allowing respondent No. 11, the respondents have already stated that the said respondent has not been given power to issue license or to represent licensees and the power delegated has been withdrawn by the Act 54 of 1994. Consequently the prayer of the petitioner regarding discrimination and to be treated alike with the respondent number No. 11 also does not survive. It is also to apparent that the motor driving training school which has a license under Rule 24 is not permitted to issue licenses. Consequently the petitioner cannot claim that its members are entitled to issue licenses. If the members of the petitioners are not entitled to issue licenses, they are not entitled to go to the offices of the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 to get licenses for their trainees. Consequently the petitioner is not entitled to get the notifications issued by the respondents.

21. Under Section 9(3) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 no permission or exemption has been granted to any of the members of the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner is also not entitled to conduct the driving tests in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in the present facts and circumstances.

22. Consequently the petitioner is not entitled for any of the relief prayed by him. There has not been any discrimination between the member of the petitioner and the respondent No. 11 in the facts and circumstances nor can it be inferred that the respondents have not taken any action against the unauthorized motor driving training schools. The writ petition is therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed. The parties are however, left to bear their own costs.