AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—The first two petitions are filed by individuals and the third petition is by the Principal of the Driving Training School, challenging Rule 8 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules prescribing pass in 8th standard as the minimum qualification to drive transport vehicle, as arbitrary and ultravires Article 14 of the Constitution.
According to the Petitioners, incorporating educational qualification under Rule 8 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule for issuing a driving license to transport vehicles was passed on 1.7.1989. However, the said Rule incorporating educational qualification as a condition precedent for issuing driving license to run transport vehicle was omitted during October, 1989. Once again the same Rule was introduced during April 2007 prescribing minimum qualification as 8th standard as a condition precedent for driving transport vehicle. It is contended, in case of non-transport vehicle, there is no such bar. So far as driving of transport vehicle is concerned, prescribing the qualification of 8th standard is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is unreasonable, arbitrary and has no nexus with the-object sought to be achieved but only deprives liberty of a citizen and it is also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution i.e., right to livelihood and also contrary to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court.
Respondents are the Union of India represented by the Department of Road Transport & Highways and the State represented by the Commissioner for Transports and the Regional Transport Officers of the area in question.
The first two Petitioners have obtained learners license and based on that they also learnt driving. However, in the meanwhile, they approached the respective RTO. In view of the bar contained in Rule 8 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules prescribing minimum standard of education i.e. 8th standard pass, to issue license to run the transport vehicle, since there was denial of issuance of regular license, Petitioners are before this Court.
According to the Petitioner in the third writ petition i.e. Principal of the Driving School, Rule 8 is arbitrary and training a student in the skill, irrespective of the qualification, would be sufficient. In stead, prescribing two different standards - not prescribing qualification for non-transport and prescribing qualification of 8th standard to transport vehicles, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Counsel representing die Central Government and also the Government Pleader representing the State submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for prescribing minimum qualification to have a driving licence. Section 27B of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 enables the concerned Government to issue notification prescribing minimum qualification as a matter of requirement in order to secure a driving license. As such, prescribing qualification adds to the benefit of the drive; to know sign boards and other skills, to avoid untoward incidents and to have a knowledge of the traffic rules and follow road discipline and it cannot be called either discriminatory or arbitrary.
What is being noticed is, during July 1989 Central Government has introduced and framed Rules by prescribing minimum educational qualification to obtain a driving license for a transport vehicle. Subsequently, the notification issued to obtain driving license as a condition precedent has been withdrawn by way of removing the educational qualification prescribed. Thereafter, the same was reintroduced during April 2007. Feeling aggrieved, Petitioners who are not having the minimum educational qualification of 8 standard, claiming that their right to livelihood is taken away and it is discriminatory, are before this Court.
So far as Rule 8 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules prescribing minimum qualification in respect of transport vehicles is concerned, though it works out hardship to most of the persons who have not acquired the qualification of 8th standard, it cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary.
Of course, there is no such bar so far as driving of non-transport vehicle is concerned. Persons who intend to learn driving or depend on driving to eek out their livelihood in the event they have not acquired the qualification prescribed, can very well be considered for issuance of non-transport driving license so that private vehicles could be operated by them. Persons who do not have the minimum prescribed qualification cannot insist upon to remove the bar though at one point of time, minimum qualification was not prescribed, as a matter of social change, such qualification is prescribed by way of amendment and it is only to promote the interest of the society at large and it cannot be treated as derogatory. Prescribing qualification is only to maintain road safety, more so, in the interest of public. The Rule so prescribed cannot be treated as m negation of Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution. It is also not as if the person who does not have the minimum qualification is not at all getting driving license. Even an illiterate can get a driving license. However, the persons who are prohibited to get a driving license for transport vehicles are only those who do not possess the prescribed qualification and they can very well get a driving license for a non-transport vehicle. This is in the form of a reasonable classification which stands the test of reasonableness.
The safety of public is also involved not only from the point of view of persons who drive public transport vehicle but, also from the point of view of the passers by. On such acquisition of knowledge through education, there would be less violation of traffic rules.
Of course, there is scope for reconsideration - to continue the minimum qualification for ever or !o modify by way of repealing the qualification at the hands of the Central Government, by way of introducing amendment to the legislation as a matter of social change. For the present, there is no scope for declaring the said Rule as violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
With the above observation, petitions are disposed of.