JAYAPRAKSH.K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct computerized learner's test and all necessary test for obtaining learner's licence by receiving applications of the applicants from petitioner's driving school, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is conducting 3 Driving Schools within the limits of Thirurangadi Sub Regional Transport Office. Petitioner's schools are having students from various parts of the district and also from neighbouring districts due to effective and good training. That apart, it is contended that, as per Sec.8(1)(ii) and Sec.9(1)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter called 'the Act'], the students of a driving school are entitled to apply for learner's licence and also secure Driving Licence from RTO office having jurisdiction in the area where the school situates. According to the petitioner, students of petitioner's driving schools are entitled to apply before Sub Regional Transport Office, Thirurangadi. When they applied for learner's licence and remitted necessary fees, they were provided with opportunity to appear for the test. But however, when the students appeared for the computerized learner's test on the dates specified, 3rd respondent refused to conduct the test. The reason stated by the 3rd respondent is that, 2nd respondent has issued a circular not to accept application from students with temporary address of driving school's jurisdiction, till the staff pattern of the Sub Regional Transport Office is increased. A notice to that effect was also published in the notice board. Therefore, even female students had to return due to the indifferent attitude of the 3rd respondent, without any opportunity of participating in the test. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate direction.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the contentions and statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition. Even though 3rd respondent is able to comprehend with the point of law put forth by the petitioner that any person who undergoes learner's test with the petitioner's driving school is entitled to apply for licence with the office at Thirurangadi, due to shortage of staff, the applications are unable to be processed and difficult to carry on with the driving test. Therefore, it is contended that, till such time the staff pattern is improved, submission of application before the Thirurangadi Office and processing it has become impossible. It is also stated that, the test conducting facility available at present is also not to the expectation and the authority finds it difficult to cater to the needs of all the applicants for appearance for the test from the schools conducted by the petitioner. Moreover, reliance is placed on Ext.R3(b) circular/letter issued by the 2nd respondent directing the Motor Vehicles authorities to process the applications for learner's licence and licence as per the stipulations contained thereunder. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition, and dispute the statements and reasons adopted for not entertaining the applications.