Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nalanda Educational Society vs The Union Of India on 2 August, 2021
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.39013 of 2018
ORDER:
In view of the large number of road accidents taking place on Indian Roads, the Government of India which had earlier been operating a scheme to set up driving training centres had provided for establishment of accredited driving training schools, which would licensed by the State Governments. This scheme was brought in by way of the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Bill, 2017. The essential purpose of the scheme was to exempt successful trainees from such schools from the need of undergoing driving tests for grant of licence for driving commercial vehicles and for serving waiting period of one year stipulated for grant of commercial driving licence after the grant of a permanent licence for personal vehicles.
2. With a view to promote such training establishments, the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, had issued guidelines in the scheme for setting up of driving training schools by proceedings Rt.- 25044/03/2017-RS. Under this scheme which would remain in operation till 31.03.2020 Non-State organisations were encouraged to set up driving training canters and such organisations were also offered one time financial assistance to the extent of 50% of the project cost, subject to a maximum of Rs.1.00 crore.
2
3. The procedure for seeking such assistance was set out in the guideline No.9 of the said guidelines which reads as under:
Procedure for seeking assistance:
(i) The agency desirous of setting up the Driving Training Centre shall prepare the DPR and submit the application in the format provided in Annexure 'A' along with a copy of the DPR.
The DPR should be vetted by the national Skill Development Council (NSDC) or any other Sector Skill Council in respect of the infrastructure provisions and also a financial institution, if the project is proposed to be funded through any institutional loan;
(ii) The Agency shall submit the proposal, duly endorsed by the District Collector to the Transport Commissioner of the concerned State. The Transport Commissioner of the State shall forward the proposal with an undertaking to accredit the Centre and except the successful trainees from the requirement of further testing for grant of licence as per Annexure 'B'. The proposal shall be forwarded to the PMU established in the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways of the purpose.
(iii) The proposal received from the agency shall be scrutinized by the PMU.
(iv) A committee of MORTH comprising of Director
(Road safety), Dy, Financial Advisor,
representative of ASRTU and SE (Road safety) shall review the proposals on a monthly basis. The appraised proposals shall be processed for release of grant, preferably within a month's time.
4. The first petitioner which is a society imparting education in various fields, had sought to set up one such driving training centre in Kantepudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District.
5. The 1st petitioner had prepared a detailed project report and submitted the detailed project report along with 3 form A, set out in Annexure A of the guidelines, to the District Collector, Guntur. Thereafter, a committee is said to have inspected the premises and the land which was being offered by the 1st petitioner and gave a report to the District Collector. Upon receipt of this report, the District Collector, Guntur by a Letter No.48254/A1/2018, dated 02.06.2018 had forwarded the application of the 1st petitioner to the Commissioner, Transport, Andhra Pradesh, who is arrayed as 4th respondent herein. After receipt of this letter, the 4th respondent by a letter dated 10.09.2018 in File No.TRB03-18021/27/2018-ROAD SFT SEC- COTN had returned the proposals by setting out about six grounds as the reasons for returning the application of the 1st petitioner. These reasons are essentially on the ground that the 1st petitioner does not have the necessary experience to take up such training activities and on the ground that the Government of India had already sanctioned various such driving training centres including schools sanctioned to M/s.APSRTC to develop 13 driving centres for each District in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said letter/order of the 4th respondent has approached this Court.
7. Ms. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said order is wholly without jurisdiction and authority. She submits that a perusal of guideline No.9 would clearly show that the role of Commissioner, Transport is essentially that of a post office and there is no discretion to the Commissioner, Transport to reject 4 or return any proposal forwarded by the District Collector. She submits that the scrutiny of the proposal is to be done at the level of the project management unit as set out in guideline No.9
(iii) and committee of MORTH as set out in guideline No.9 (iv).
8. The 4th respondent has now filed a counter affidavit setting out various reasons for the return of the said proposal. The learned Government Pleader for Transport while reiterating the contentions raised in the counter affidavit would submit that the application of the petitioner was not in consonance with guideline No.9(1) which required the DPR to be vetted either by the National Skill Development Council (NSDC) or any other Sector Skill Council. He submits that in view of the reasons set out in the rejection order and in view of the non-compliance of the requirements of the guideline No.9 (i) set out by MORTH, the action of the 4th respondent in returning the application of the 1st petitioner is valid.
9. Heard Ms.Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Transport for the respondents.
10. A perusal of guideline No.9 would show that both the District Collector as well as the Commissioner, Transport are only to forward the applications submitted by interested applicants to the Ministry of Report Transport and Highways and it is the project management unit set up under guideline No.13 that would consider the applications of such parties, in their entirety, to determine whether any financial assistance should be given to such applicants. In the said circumstances, 5 the return of the application by the Commissioner, Transport is not in accordance with the requirement of guideline No.9. As far the question of non-compliance of guideline No.9 (i) is concerned, the said objection was never raised in the order of return of the application and the said objection has only been raised before this Court by way of a counter affidavit. It is settled law as far as back in the case of M.S.Gill and another Vs.Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others.,1 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an order under review is to be considered on the basis of the reasons set out in the said order and the said reasons cannot be supplemented by additional reasons given out in subsequent counter affidavit filed before the Court.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the order/letter of the Commissioner, Transport dated 10.09.2018 in file No.TRB03- 18021/27/2018-ROAD SFT SEC-COTN has to be set-aside as it is not in accordance with the guidelines.
12. However, the fact remains that the period for submission of the applications, as set out under guideline No.11 is between 30.04.2018 up to 30.11.2018 and that the scheme was remain in operation till 31.03.2020 and the applications may not be within time.
13. Ms.Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application of the 1st petitioner was within the said time and the reason for delay, if 1 AIR (1978) SC 851 + 1978 SCR Co.(3) 272.
6any, is on account of the order/letter of the Commissioner, Transport returning the applications. She submits that once the said order is held to be invalid, it would only be equitable to permit the application of the petitioner to be processed further.
14. In these circumstances, the order of return by the Commissioner, Transport dated 10.09.2018 in filing No.TRB03- 18021/27/2018-ROAD SFT SEC-COTN is set-aside with a further direction to the 4th respondent to forward the application of the petitioner to a Ministry of Roads Transport and Highways along with the duly executed form as set out in Annexure B of the guidelines.
15. However, it would be open to the 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. As far as the cut off date is concerned, it would be open to the 1st respondent to consider whether the said cut off date is to be applied strictly or to be relaxed in favour of the 1st petitioner in view of the delay caused on account of the order of the Commissioner, Transport.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
02.08.2021 RJS 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39013 of 2018 02.08.2021 RJS