JANATHA MOTOR DRIVING TRAINING SCHOOL BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SRI. K. NARAYAN RAO Vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THESE petitions are disposed of by this common order as they seek to challenge the very Circular.

(3.) WHILE elaborating on me grounds urged In the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would commonly urge that the present system adopted by the Department causes inconvenience to the petitioners to run the school In accordance with the Provisions of the Act and Rules, in cases, where the applicants who apply for driving license after training in the driving schools, are furnished with their driving licenses directly, the schools would not have the details such as date of passing the driving competence tests, license number, date and name of the issuing authority, etc. In order to furnish particulars as per Form No. 14 as required under Rule 27 of the Rules. It Is contended that the object claimed in the Introduction of the new system as being the elimination of the agents and middlemen on behalf of the applicants cannot be pressed into service as against the petitioners who are not brokers or middlemen. It is urged that they are legitimate driving schools established under the Rules. It would be difficult for the petitioners to comply with the requirement of maintaining the statutory registers for recording particulars of the students. It is hence claimed that it is necessary to revert to the earlier system of handing over the documents and driving license, either to the applicants or their authorised representative and it would be a matter of little difficulty for the petitioners to obtain the necessary authorisation from students or applicants seeking driving license through the medium of the petitioners. It is pointed out that, once driving licenses are despatched directly to the applicants, it would be Impossible for the petitioners to follow -up with such applications to make necessary entries in Form No. 14, It is also sought to be urged that In terms of certain communications as between the Postal and Telegraph Department and the respondents, It was agreed by the Postal Department to despatch by Speed Pest the license and other documents by way of bulk transmission at the rate of Rs. 12/ - per envelope of the prescribed size and weight. However, respondent No. 2 has compulsory prescribed Rs. 25/ - as the postage fee per envelope, even Inspite of the Postal Department having agreed to carry the same at Rs. 12/ -. This obviously is an unexplained expense, which is imposed on the general public. Hence, no prejudice would be caused, If the respondents are directed -to permit the petitioners to represent their respective students and to receive the driving licenses and other documents directly on behalf of their applicants and students and that there Is no cause for anxiety as to the petitioners causing any nuisance at the Regional Transport Office, by virtue of such a measure. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seek to urge the grounds of challenge in this view and seek appropriate directions.