Ali vs The State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 6882 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
    THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 14536 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          ALI,
          AGED 43 YEARS
          S/O MUHAMMED, CHITHRAM PALLI HOUSE,
          PANAGATTUR PO, TIRURTALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 676302

          BY ADVS.      JAMSHEED HAFIZ
                        K.K.NESNA


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

    2     REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
          REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION,
          KUNNUMMAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.,
          PIN - 676505

    3     KERALA TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
          2-D FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
          THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.,
          PIN - 695014


OTHER PRESENT:

          GP SRI SREEJITH V S

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.14536/2023

                                       -:2:-




                       Dated this the 22nd day of June,2023

                              JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash

Ext P1 order passed by the second respondent

directing the petitioner to submit a police clearance

certificate (in short, 'PCC') for the purpose of issuing

licence to conduct a Motor Driving School.

2. The petitioner's case is that he had submitted

an application before the second respondent, on

12.12.2022, to permit him to conduct a Motor Driving

School. Then, the second respondent passed Ext P1

order, directing the petitioner to produce a PCC. The

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(in short, 'Act') and the

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short, 'Rules')

do not insist that an applicant has to produce a PCC to

establish and conduct a Motor Driving School. The

petitioner has matrimonial disputes with his estranged W.P.(C)No.14536/2023

wife. There are matrimonial proceedings pending in

Courts. However, the petitioner is a law abiding

citizen and is not convicted by any court. The

petitioner has a fundamental right to carry on his own

business. The insistence of the PCC is arbitrary,

unjustifiable and illegal. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sreejith

V.S., the learned Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents.

4. Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz, reiterated the

contentions in the writ petition and argued that the

condition imposed in Ext P1 order is untenable. Just

because the petitioner has matrimonial disputes with

his estranged wife, who has filed a false criminal

complaint against him, he cannot be denied the right to

conduct a Motor Driving School, unless he is convicted

by a competent Court. Hence, even if the PCC shows W.P.(C)No.14536/2023

that there is a criminal case registered against the

petitioner, it can never be construed that he is a

criminal.

5. Sri. Sreejith V.S., on the contrary, contended

that Ext P1 order passed by the second respondent is

justifiable. He drew the attention of this Court to

Section 12(4) of the Act, which deals with the

establishment of the schools for imparting instruction

in driving of motor vehicles and matters connected

thereto. He also referred to Rule 24(3) of the Rules, to

fortify his contention that, every applicant who is

desirous of conducting a Motor Driving School, has to

be a person of good moral character. It was on this

basis that Ext P1 order was passed by the second

respondent is legal. Hence, he prayed that the writ

petition be dismissed.

6. The petitioner's grievance is with regard to

the insistence of the second respondent for a PCC, W.P.(C)No.14536/2023

before considering his application to establish and

conduct a Motor Driving School.

7. Section 12(4) of the Act reads as follows:

"(4)A school or establishment imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles or matters connected therewith immediately before the commencement of this Act, whether under a licence or not, may continue to impart such instruction without a licence issued under this Act for a period of one month from such commencement, and if it has made an application for such licence under this Act within the said period of one month and such application is in the prescribed form, contains the prescribed particulars and is accompanied by the prescribed fee, till the disposal of such application by the licensing authority."

8. Rule 24(3) of the Rules reads as follows:

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.

W.P.(C)No.14536/2023

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:

[Emphasis supplied]

9. A reading of the above substantial provision

and the Rules framed thereunder makes it abundantly

clear that the licensing authority has been conferred

with the power to insist for a certificate of the

applicant, who is desirous to start a Motor Driving

School, that he is a person of good character.

10. It is based on the above rule, that the first

respondent has insisted the petitioner to produce a

PCC. Thus, it can never be said that the stand of the

first respondent in Ext P1 order, directing the W.P.(C)No.14536/2023

petitioner to produce the PCC is high-handed or

excessive. Consequently, the petitioner's prayer to

quash Ext P1 on the above said ground is meritless and

has to fail.

11. Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz, then argued that just

because there is a criminal case registered against the

petitioner and reflected in the PCC, it will not make the

petitioner a person of bad moral character. It is only if

the petitioner is convicted by a competent court, that

too for an offence of moral turpitude, can the petitioner

be branded as a person of bad moral character.

However, in the case on hand, a fabricated criminal

case is filed by the petitioner's estranged wife, only for

the purpose of extorting money from him. Therefore,

the second respondent may be directed to consider the

application on its merits, notwithstanding the criminal

case registered against the petitioner. I find

considerable merit and force in the above submission. W.P.(C)No.14536/2023

12. Having appreciated the pleadings and

materials on record and the rival submissions made

across the bar, I am of the definite view that the mere

registration of a crime will not make a person of bad

moral character, as laid down in a host of judicial

pronouncements by this Court. It is only when a

person is convicted for an offence of moral turpitude

would that inference arise.

13. In the above conspectus, I am inclined to

direct the second respondent to consider and dispose

of the petitioner's application, in accordance with law,

notwithstanding the adverse remarks in the PCC, after

affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows:

(i) The petitioner's prayer to quash Ext P1 order is rejected.

(ii) The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application, in W.P.(C)No.14536/2023

accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner.

Sd/-

                                      C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

DST/22.06.23                                          //True copy//

                                                      P.A.To Judge
 W.P.(C)No.14536/2023






                              APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1             TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND

RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO SUBMIT CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE IN ORDER TO ISSUE LICENSE FOR CONDUCTING A MOTOR DRIVING SCHOOL DATED 07.02.2023

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL