V P ANTONY Vs. LICENSING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for and obtained a licence to drive light vehicles on 3-4-1978. Within three years thereof, to be precise on 18-4-1980, he submitted Ext. P5 application to obtain a licence to drive a transport vehicle which admittedly is a heavy motor vehicle falling both within Sub-s.(9) and (9A) of S.2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. As per Ext. P6 endorsement the petitioner was told that since he has not completed three years after obtaining licence to drive light motor vehicles Ext. P5 application is returned. The application also was returned to the petitioner. This was for the reason that proviso to R.10 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961 provides that no authorisation to drive a heavy motor vehicle other than a car or tractor shall be granted unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority concerned that he has had previous experience in driving light or medium motor vehicle or both together for a period of 3 years. The proviso proceeds to deal with authorisation to drive a medium motor vehicle about which I am not concerned in this case. The stipulation in the proviso as aforesaid as regards experience in driving light or medium motor vehicles or both together for a period of 3 years in order to obtain a licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle, is impugned in this petition as ultra vires of the rule making power of the State under S.21 of the Act.

(2.) S.21 of the Act enables a State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chap.2 beginning with S.3 and ending with S.21. Chap.2 concerns licencing of drivers of motor vehicles. It is in exercise of the powers conferred under S.21 also to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chap.2 that the Kerala State has framed the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961. The attack on the provision impugned is that the provision contravenes S.4 of the Act and particularly Sub-s.(2) thereof. It is also contended that the provision as aforesaid prescribing qualification of experience in the proviso to R.10 offends the scheme contained in S.7 and 8 of the Act and particularly Sub-s.(8) of S.7. I shall examine the contention as aforesaid hereunder,

(3.) S.4 reads: