E D GAJENDRAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a physically challenged person. Aspiring to drive an autorickshaw, he applied for a learner's licence. He moved this Court since his application was not granted, Ext.P1 judgment was issued directing consideration of his case on the basis of relevant materials. Following this, petitioner produced Ext.P3 medical certificate. Thereupon, Ext.P4 was issued, whereby the petitioner was issued a learner's licence for invalid carriage. Challenging the same, the petitioner insists that he is entitled to be permitted to ply an autorickshaw and is eligible to be issued a learner's licence for an autorickshaw.

(2.) Ext.P3 medical certificate is issued by a doctor, an Eye and ENT Specialist. He has certified that the petitioner is medically fit to hold a driving licence despite post polio paralysis of both legs. The certificate also states that it has been personally ascertained that the movements needed for driving a vehicle is adequate. Armed with that certificate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that in terms of Section 8(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the "Act", the application of the petitioner ought to have been granted and that the said provision of law enables refusal to grant licence only on the basis of the materials available from the application and from the medical certificate.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader urged that Sub-section 4 of Section 8 of the Act cannot be construed in a limited and strict sense, as is urged on behalf of the petitioner, since any such construction will only result in danger to the public and to the passengers.