In a PIL, a registered society sought a direction to issue permanent driving licenses to individuals who had participated in social welfare camps. The court declined to intervene in the administrative domain of driving license testing and dismissed the petition as devoid of substance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
{1}
pil1314.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.13 OF 2014
Sevasankalp Jankalyan Pratishthan
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & another
Respondents
Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the petitioner Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
V.K.JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 23rdSeptember, 2014
PER COURT:
1 The petitioner is a registered society under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and also registered under the Societies Registration Act, is involved in social activities to support cause of public at large and is stated to be regularly arranging various camps such as Blood Donation Camp, Public Awareness Camp and such other social activities for the benefit of public at large.
2 The petitioner is seeking a direction to Respondent No.2 to issue permanent driving license in favour of individuals who have participated in the camp arranged by the petitioner for securing permanent driving license.
3 It is averred by the petitioner that camps for issuance of learner's license were arranged on 18.12.2012 and 30.01.2013 at Banoti and Hanumant Kheda with a view to facilitate the participants to have driving license. It is stated that after issuance of learner's license, Respondent-authorities, in spite of repeated requests, did not arrange for a camp for issuance of permanent driving license to the individuals who
{2}
pil1314.odt
have been issued learner's license on earlier occasion. The petitioner states that the petitioner is prepared to make arrangements necessary for holding such camp. Our attention is invited to Rule 15 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and it is canvassed that no specific place is denoted in the rules for conducting test for issuance of permanent driving license.
4 An affidavit-in-reply has been presented on behalf of Respondent No.2 and in paragraphs no.9 and 10, it is stated thus:
"9 With reference to para no.14 of the petition, I say and submit that, it is incorrect on the part of petitioner to contend that, they have undergone the driving test and they were successful in the test, it is clarified that, camp was arranged for issuance of learner license while issuing learning license test are not conducted during the special camp. Sub section 3 of Section 9 stipulates that no applicant can be issued a license without driving test. The test of competence to drive a vehicle has been prescribed under Rule 15 of Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. Besides this, the candidates appearing for the test must have the knowledge of mandatory cautionary informatory signs, which is incorporated under the 1st schedule of M.V. Act, 1988. Moreover, the candidate is required to be acquainted with the provisions of section 119, 120, 121, 122 and 123 regarding duty to obey Traffic Signs, Vehicles, with left hand control, Signal and signaling devices, leaving vehicle in dangerous position, riding on running board, etc. At the time of driving test, the knowledge of driving regulation is ascertained. As such though the requisite fees have been deposited by the candidates but no one has turned up for driving test.
10 I most respectfully say and submit that, no special camp for the test of driving license are arranged except the regular camp, nor there is any provision to arrange special camp for driving test. The applicants did not turn up for driving test within stipulated period."
pil1314.odt
{3}
5 In view of the difficulties put forward by Respondent No.4, we do not wish to enter into the area, which is exclusive domain of Respondent No.2 and dwell upon the administrative responsibilities of respondent no.2 relating to issuance of permanent driving license, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, no interference is called for. PIL is devoid of substance.
6 Public Interest Litigation (PIL), as such, stands dismissed.
R.M.BORDE
V.K.JADHAV R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE
adb/pil1314
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct Respondent No.2 to issue permanent driving licenses to participants of the petitioner-style social camps.
Whether the PIL is maintainable in view of the facts and law applicable to the issuance of driving licenses.
Sevasankalp Jankalyan Pratishthan
The State of Maharashtra
R.M.BORDE
V.K.JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
