Janatha Motor Driving Training School vs The Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Transport Department and The Commissioner for Transport

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

These petitions are disposed of by this common order as they seek to challenge the very Circular.

The facts are as follows:

The petitioners in the first of these petitions are driving schools established u/s 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act", for brevity) read with Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Rules" for brevity). It is contended that apart from Imparting training to applicants seeking to learn driving, the petitioners also undertake the exercise of submitting applications on their behalf for Issuance of driving licenses. The petitioners were also collecting the Driving Licenses on behalf of such applicants and after recording the particulars of the driving licenses In the Register maintained by them, In Form No. 14, as required under Rule 27(a) of the Rules. It transpires that respondent No. 2 by Its letters dated 02.04.2009 and 14.05.2009 sought for permission of me State Government to Introduce certain changes in the existing system of delivery of documents to the applicants by hand in the Office of the said Authority,, on the ground that there was a menace of middlemen working In the vicinity of the competent authority exploiting appoints for driving licenses generally, and therefore sought for permission to change the system of delivery of documents including the license which were proposed to be sent by Speed Post to the respective applicants, as was the practice followed by the states of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. In this regard, the applicant was to supply a self addressed cover with postal stamps in order to enable the Postal Department to despatch the documents by Speed Post and In this regard, It also proposed to prescribe the necessary postal stamp of Rs. 25/- In respect of each self-addressed cover to be enclosed along with the application for driving license.

The State Government granted permission to the proposal, by Its communication dated 10.06.2009. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 had Issued a Circular dated 22.07.2009 as per Annexure - ''C'' to the first of these writ petitions whereby It was made compulsory to despatch the driving license and other documents to the applicants directly by Speed Post it Is this, which Is sought to be challenged In the present writ petition.

While elaborating on me grounds urged In the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would commonly urge that the present system adopted by the Department causes inconvenience to the petitioners to run the school In accordance with the Provisions of the Act and Rules, in cases, where the applicants who apply for driving license after training in the driving schools, are furnished with their driving licenses directly, the schools would not have the details such as date of passing the driving competence tests, license number, date and name of the issuing authority, etc. In order to furnish particulars as per Form No. 14 as required under Rule 27 of the Rules.

It Is contended that the object claimed in the Introduction of the new system as being the elimination of the agents and middlemen on behalf of the applicants cannot be pressed into service as against the petitioners who are not brokers or middlemen. It is urged that they are legitimate driving schools established under the Rules. It would be difficult for the petitioners to comply with the requirement of maintaining the statutory registers for recording particulars of the students. It is hence claimed that it is necessary to revert to the earlier system of handing over the documents and driving license, either to the applicants or their authorised representative and it would be a matter of little difficulty for the petitioners to obtain the necessary authorisation from students or applicants seeking driving license through the medium of the petitioners. It is pointed out that, once driving licenses are despatched directly to the applicants, it would be Impossible for the petitioners to follow-up with such applications to make necessary entries in Form No. 14,

It is also sought to be urged that In terms of certain communications as between the Postal and Telegraph Department and the respondents, It was agreed by the Postal Department to despatch by Speed Pest the license and other documents by way of bulk transmission at the rate of Rs. 12/- per envelope of the prescribed size and weight. However, respondent No. 2 has compulsory prescribed Rs. 25/- as the postage fee per envelope, even Inspite of the Postal Department having agreed to carry the same at Rs. 12/-. This obviously is an unexplained expense, which is imposed on the general public. Hence, no prejudice would be caused, If the respondents are directed -to permit the petitioners to represent their respective students and to receive the driving licenses and other documents directly on behalf of their applicants and students and that there Is no cause for anxiety as to the petitioners causing any nuisance at the Regional Transport Office, by virtue of such a measure. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seek to urge the grounds of challenge in this view and seek appropriate directions.

5, The Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that having regard to the Increasing vehicular Influx Into the State and the number of people who consequently visit various RTO offices across the State dally, If the applicants for driving license are permitted to visit the RTO Office, to follow-up on their applications It causes congestion at the office and therefore causes much inconvenience for the departmental officers In performing their duties. And further, In order to avoid the intervention of middlemen and brokers and In order to mitigate the difficulties faced by the general public to secure the license, the documents are delivered at the doorstep of the applicant, expeditiously. Further, In despatching the driving license through Speed Post, the correctness of the addresses of the applicants are ensured. There is a check even at this stage that the licenses are despatched to the applicants reside at the particular address furnished. This has been Implemented by the impugned Circular and the claim on the part of the petitioners that It would be more convenient to hand over the same to the petitioners is without basis. As the licenses are issued directly to the applicants, the petitioners do not have any locus standi to claim that they represent the students of their school or the applicants who have made applications for licenses in their individual capacity. Hence, the very oasis of the petition is misconceived as the petitioner has no individual interest in so far as claiming convenience In the license being hand over personally to the petitioners. Even if the petitioners were to be authorised by their respective students, It is not a matter to be decided at the Instance of the petitioners. It is further contended that the system of sending the documents by post is already In vogue In neighboring States of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. The only person who may be inconvenienced by the Circular are the Intermediaries, middlemen and other agents who depend on the unwary applicants, for their earnings. Though the petitioners cannot be grouped as brokers or agents, the practice of course adopted by them would also bring them within the class of intermediaries who act on behalf of their students, and possibly for a consideration. Hence, there is no warrant for any special consideration in so far as the petitioners arc concerned.

In so far the contention that, by virtue of the petitioners not being able to access the license, they are not In a position to complete the particulars In Form No. 14 as Is statutorily required, It Is stated that the Department has evolved a system of generating through Computers, which Is accessible by the general public, the details of every candidate of every driving training school who Is issued with a driving license on a day-today basis. A copy of the format, in which the RTO office concerned, would generate the above information, Is furnished. This Information, It is contended would be provided to the driving training schools also and free of cost. With this information, the driving training schools would be able to complete the entries as required In Form No. 14 to be maintained by them. Incidentally, It is pointed out, that though, Form No. 14 contains a column for signature of the "license holder", It does not refer to the applicant for a license but the driving school Itself, which Is a license holder and therefore, there is no impediment in complying with Form No. 14 prescribed under Rule 27 of the Rules.

In so far as the contention, that there Is an unfair collection of Rs. 25/- per envelope by the parties for despatching the license by speed Post is concerned, this Is done on an uniform basis though the postal rates prescribed is at Rs. 12/- per envelope weighing less than 51 grams and Rs. 20/- per envelope weighing more than 200 grams. The prescription of Rs. 25/- per envelope is to ensure that there is a uniform rate prescribed by way of abundant caution since it only to ensure that the cover should not be returned for want of adequate stamp. Since the Postal Department also charges Rs. 25/- per envelope upto 50 gram irrespective of the distance Involved, for this reason, the impugned circular has also stated that the envelopes to be submitted by the general public shall bear a postage stamp of Rs. 25/- on an uniform basis. This postage does not enable the respondents to derive any unjust benefit and therefore the allegation is unfair and does not result in the circular being vitiated on that count. Hence it Js contended that the writ petitions be dismissed.

On these rival contentions, in so far as the petitioners being inconvenienced on account of the driving licenses being sent by Speed Post Is concerned, there is no apparent Inconvenience to the petitioners except in so far as claiming that the Form No. 14, which is required to be statutorily maintained cannot be filled-up with the necessary particulars unless the petitioners are furnished with a copy of the license granted to applicants who are trained by them. In this regard, the learned Advocate General has pointed out that, these particulars are available on a day-to-day basis, which the petitioners may access, in maintaining the Registers. The further contention that the signatures of the applicants also must be obtained on the said Form, after the license is Issued, it is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that the column prescribes the signature of the driving school and not the applicant. Further, in so far as the concession of postage charges of Rs. 12/- is concerned, since the Respondents do not derive any benefit from the postage charge being prescribed at Rs. 25/- per envelope, which may be In order to avoid the covers being returned for being under-stamped, such uniform charge being imposed cannot be said to be illegal not can be urged as a ground for vitiating the Circular.

However, if it is more convenient for the students or the applicants of the respective driving schools to retrieve their license through the school. Itself and if the petitioners are able to furnish Instances and appropriate information to satisfy the competent Authority as to such a measure being a necessary exception In so far the driving schools are concerned, It would be open for the petitioners to make such representations to the competent Authority and It shall be In the entire discretion of such Authority to arrive-at a decision in this regard. And, this shall not be constrained as a binding direction to compulsory Issue such exemption in favour of the petitioners.

With these observations, the petitions are disposed of.