K VENU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are connected, and common questions of law and fact arise for consideration. The petitioner in each of the WPs 4012 and 5861 of 1981 is an applicant before the Regional Transport Officer, Banglore, for grant of a Driving Licence to drive heavy vehicles as a paid employee. The petitioner in WP No. 4013/81 has applied for a driving licence to drive an autorikshaw. The petitioners in WPs 4014 and 4015 and 5862 of 1981 are motor driving schools. The prayers made in these writ petitions are to declare that the endorsement made by the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore, on the application of each of the petitioners in WPs 4012, 4013 and 5861 of 1981, that he has failed in part I, is null and void and to quash the same and further to issue a mandamus to the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore, to grant the necessary driving licence to each one of the applicants.

(2.) In these writ petitions, allegations of mala fides have been made against the 3rd respondent (the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore). The respondents also in their statement of objections have taken a stand that the petitioners have come into possession of the original applications as filed by each of the petitioners in WPs 4012, 4013 and 5861 of 1981 by foul means, therefore, those documents should not be looked into and on that score alone the relief should be denied to them. Allegations relating to mala fides made by the petitioners have been denied by the respondents. Similarly the allegations made by the respondents against the petitioners regarding the obtaining of the origina applications also have been denied by the petitioners. But during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations relating to mala fides need not be gone into having regard to the fact that the respondents have admitted that the Inspector of Motor Vehicles has first conducted the test of competence to drive and has issued a certificate to each of the applicants for having passed the test. Similarly, the learned Goverment Advocate, Sri Doddakalegowda has also submitted that the allegations made by the respondents against the petitioners about the obtaining of the original applications by the petitioners in WPs 4012, 4013 and 5861 of 1981 need not be gone into and may be treated as given up. In view of these submissions, it is not necessary for the Court to go into the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioners against the Regional Transport Officer, Banglore, and also the allegations of foul play regarding the obtaining of the original applications made against the petitioners by the respondents.

(3.) Leaving aside the aforesaid questions, the only question that is urged in these writ petitions is as to whether the Regional Transport Officer is entitled to conduct a re-test when once the Inspector of Motor Vehicles as a testing Officer conducts the test and issues a certificate that the applicant has passed the necessary test. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on R. 12 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and also S. 7 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter re-ferred to as 'the Act'). On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate has placed reliance on sub-sec. (12) of S. 2 and sub-sees. (1), (6) and (8) of Ss. 7 and 21 of the Act, and also Rr. 4, 12, 13 and/367 of the Rules. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the Regional Transport Officer being the licensing authority as per R. 4 of the Rules, under sub-sec. (6) of S. 7 of the Act, the applicant has to pass to the satisfaction of the licensing authority the test of competence to drive as specified in the third Schedule ; therefore, irrespective of the fact that the Inspector of Motor Vehicles has conducted the test and has issued a, certificate that each one of the applicants has passed the necessary test, it is still open for the Regional Transport Officer in order to get himself satisfied about the driving ability or competence of the applicant to conduct a re-test. According to the learned Government Advocate, it is in the exercise of this power that the Regional Transport Officer has conducted the re-test and has held that each one of the applicants has failed in Part I. Though it is denied that the 3rd respondent (RTO, Bangalore) has conducted the re-test of each of the applicants, but during the course of arguments, this contention is not pressed and the case is argued on the basis of a legal contention that it is not open for the Regional Transport Officer to conduct another test when once the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, as a testing Officer, has conducted the test and has issued the required certificate.