Kerala High Court
Bibiji Gopal vs Union Of India on 23 March, 2013
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
SATURDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2013/2ND CHAITHRA 1935
WP(C).No. 10379 of 2009 (N)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
BIBIJI GOPAL,
S/O.GOPAL, KOTTANCHIRA KUNNU HOUSE, NIDIYANGA P.O.,
SREEKANDAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
SMT.R.LEELA
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY, NEW DELHI.
2. ASSISTANT LICENSING AUTHORITY,
THALIPARAMBA REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THALIPARAMBA,
KANNUR.
R1 BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNA MOORTHY SC FOR UNION OF INDIA
SRI.ALEX VARGHESE, CGC
R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SHYSON MANGUZHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-03-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 10379 of 2009 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE PARTICULARS ISSUED BY THE LICENSING
AUTHORITIES
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE WITHOUT BADGE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
LSN
K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.10379 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to have applied for a Transport Vehicle driving license renewal, which was declined by the second respondent. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition is that, the petitioner had originally applied for and obtained a Non- Transport Vehicle driving license, which was valid up to 01.02.2021. Subsequently, he had applied for 'badge' and his Transport Vehicle driving license with a badge was valid till 01.02.2008. When he applied for the renewal of the said license, it is the contention that, Rule 8 was brought in by an amendment of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), by virtue of which the minimum educational qualification to obtain a license to drive a Transport Vehicle was specified as passing the 8th standard. However, the said Rule itself stipulated that a renewal of the driving license to drive a Transport Vehicle W.P.(C) NO.10379 of 2009 2 would not come under the said Rule and the minimum educational qualification should not be insisted upon for such renewal. The petitioner merely asserts that, he had applied for a Transport Vehicle license renewal immediately on expiry, which was not granted by the Authority.
2. The counter affidavit of the respondent Department states that, the petitioner had originally obtained the driving license from the State of Karnataka and also the license to drive Transport Vehicle along with badge. However, shifting residence to the State, he had applied for renewal of the driving license which as per Rules was granted. However, there was no provision by which a badge issued by another State can be renewed on transfer of license and it was necessary that the petitioner apply for a new badge. The same was not done in 1996, at the time of transfer of driving license; in the appropriate Form 'LTA'. Rule 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, provides for an application for authorization to drive Transport W.P.(C) NO.10379 of 2009 3 Vehicles accompanied by a Conduct Certificate as provided in Rule 7 and also a certificate evidencing competence in first-aid work. The Rules also provide for an oral test to ascertain whether the applicant is conversant with the duties and responsibilities of a driver of Transport Vehicles. It is only after compliance of the above procedure and on satisfaction of the Licensing Authority that a badge is issued under Sec.11. In the instant case in the absence of an application there was no question of issuance of a badge without which the license to drive a Transport Vehicle is also not complete. The existence of a valid 'badge' asserted by the petitioner, hence, is specifically denied by the Department.
3. With respect to the renewal of license to drive Transport Vehicle, the contention of the petitioner that, the petitioner has made an application, which was not considered by the Department is denied by the State. Hence, this Court has to make inference looking at the W.P.(C) NO.10379 of 2009 4 documents produced in the above case. The contention of the petitioner is that, it is the livelihood of the petitioner and the petitioner would have normally made an application for renewal of his driving license. It is very evident from the records produced by the petitioner himself that, the license to drive Transport Vehicle expired on 01.02.2008. The above writ petition is filed after more than a year on 27.03.2009. If the petitioner's, contention that it was his livelihood, is accepted, then he had no valid driving license from 01.03.2008, for more than an year. The date on which driving license for Transport Vehicle expired is on 01.03.2008, one month after the date of expiry.
4. Evidently, the petitioner has not made any application and the attempt of the petitioner is to circumvent the amendment to the rules by which minimum educational qualification has been prescribed. The Transport Vehicle license of the petitioner from Karnataka has lapsed and in any event he has not been issued a badge as provided under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and at the W.P.(C) NO.10379 of 2009 5 time the amendment came,he did not have autorisation to drive a Transport Vehicle under Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. The petitioner could only make an application for a fresh Transport Vehicle license for which he requires the minimum educational qualification as prescribed in Rule 8 brought in by Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules 2007. In the teeth of the above findings, this Court is of the opinion that, the writ petition is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed with no costs.
Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge True Copy P.A to Judge lsn