The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs :- “a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other Writ or Order or Direction quashing Exhibit P7 Order issued by the 2nd respondent cancelling the Exhibit P2 Driving School Licence of the Petitioner.
b) Direct the 2nd respondent to allow the Petitioner to function his Driving School Sree Gurudev Motor Driving School in the strength of Exhibit P2 Driving School Licence.
c) Direct the respondents to provide Class Addition to Exhibit P2 Driving School Licence for the Petitioner.
d) Grant such other and further Reliefs as prayed for and deems just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case as also the following :”
The petitioner is conducting a Driving School by name Sree Gurudev Motor Driving School. He had submitted a request to the 2nd respondent for permission to start additional classes. The said request was rejected by Ext.P3. Thereafter by Ext.P7, the Driving School Licence has also been cancelled. The reason stated in Ext.P7 is that the petitioner does not possess the qualifications stipulated by Rule 24(3)(viii) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as CMV Rules). The contention of the petitioner is that, his Driving School Licence is valid up to 1.6.2015. Even assuming that the petitioner does not possess the necessary qualification for conducting the Driving School, it is contended that, he is entitled to continue his Driving School till the expiry of the licence. It is also contended that Ext.P9 Certificate possessed by the petitioner is sufficient qualification to satisfy the stipulations contained in Rule 24(3) (viii) of the CMV Rules. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Ext.P7.
2. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. According to the 2nd respondent, the Certificate possessed by the petitioner is not equivalent to the qualification of ITI, the requirement that is stipulated. Reliance is placed on Ext.R2(a), communication from the Principal of the Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Attingal, to contend that the petitioner had fully undergone the course of part time study to complete one Module out of total 5 Modules, for which the Institute has got permission to conduct. In all, the Rules consists of 13 Modules. It is also contended that though the petitioner had been directed to secure the services of a qualified Instructor, he had not done it. In view of the above, the 2nd respondent was left to no other alternative to cancel the Driving School conducted by the petitioner. It is contended that the said action does not call for any interference at the hands of the petitioner. Though the petitioner had referred to some other Driving Schools that are still permitted to be conducted without a qualified instructor, according to the counter affidavit, action has been taken against all such institutions.
3. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in answer to the statements made in the Counter Affidavit. Though the petitioner asserts that he is fully qualified to conduct a Driving School and to impart instructions to the learners, the 2nd respondent disputes the same. Going by Ext.R2(a), the qualification of the petitioner cannot be said to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(3)(viii). Though it is contended that the petitioner's Driving School Licence has been cancelled when a request for permission to start additional classes was made, the said contention does not appear to be correct. The request for additional classes has been rejected by Ext.P3. Ext.P7 has been issued after the petitioner had been directed to show cause by a notice dated 5.8.2013. Ext.P7 has been passed only long thereafter on 28.3.2014. Therefore, the statement in the Counter Affidavit that the said order was passed in the face of the refusal of the petitioner to appoint a qualified Instructor as directed by the 2nd respondent has to be accepted. According to the Counter Affidavit, periodic inspections of the Driving Schools have to be conducted to find out whether the provisions of Law are being complied with.
4. Ext.P7 has obviously been issued on finding that the petitioner's Driving School does not have a qualified Instructor. The validity period of the licence issued to the petitioner cannot have any bearing on the said issue. The licence can be cancelled whenever it is found that the Driving School was not being conducted in accordance with law, even during the period of validity of a licence. Ext.P7 has been issued after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P7. In the Counter Affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner is ready to appoint a qualified Instructor. If the petitioner appoints a qualified Instructor and submits a proper application, the 2nd respondent shall re-consider the stand taken in Ext.P7.
With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
Jvt