MILAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P-7 by which the 1st respondent has chosen to reject the request of the petitioner to include three new vehicles in the driving school licence issued to the petitioner, insisting upon a requirement to have an instructor with 5 years' experience in each category of vehicles is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is running a motor driving school and he has been granted Ext. P-1 licence under Rules 24(1), 24(4) and 25 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The petitioner alleges that he has appointed a qualified instructor as mandated by the Rules and he had made an application to include 3 new vehicles i.e. forklift, trailer and excavator in Ext. P-1 licence. He had paid the required fee also. However the 1st respondent by Ext. P-7 rejected the request with a direction to appoint a qualified instructor as per rules assigning the reason that the instructor should have a minimum driving experience of 5 years in each category of vehicle. This according to the petitioner is illegal and thus he has come up before this court.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent State they have admitted the fact that the petitioner is running a driving school under Ext. P-1 licence. According to the State the instructor appointed by the petitioner has been authorized to drive light motor vehicle with effect from 20-10-1973, three wheeler with effect from 7-4-1986, motorcycle with gear with effect from 12-12-1997, heavy passenger motor vehicle with effect from 11-5-1979, heavy goods vehicle with effect from 13-2-2004. However they would contend that the licence for driving forklift, excavator and trailer issued to the instructor was only with effect from 2-8-2010. Therefore the respondent maintained the stand that the instructor had only six months experience on the date of the application. Therefore those vehicles could not be included within the purview of Ext. P-1; it was contended.