CYRIL LOBO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.No.1382 of 1970 is a helper in a motor-lorry. He had applied to the Regional Transport Officer, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as the R.T.O.), for issue of a licence to drive heavy motor vehicles. His application was rejected by the R.T.O. on the ground that he did not possess experience as provided by sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) . The petitioner has challenged the validity of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5. He has also challenged the Notification of the Government dated 11-3-1970 by which R.5 has been amended by deleting sub-rule (7) therein He has also praytd for a mandamus directing the R.T.O. (respondent-2) to issue him the driving licence as applied for.

(2.) The petitioners in W.Ps.Nos.1383 and 1914 of 1970 are owners of Motor Driving Schools in which training is imparted in driving motor vehicles, including light, medium and heavy motor vehicles. These Schools issue driving certificates to persons who have undergone training therein. These two petitioners have also challenged the validity of sub-rules (2) and (3) of R.5 and the deletion ol sub-rule (7) of that Rule.

(3.) As all these three petitions involve common question of law, we have heard them together and we are deciding them by this common order.