Dismissed

Saindi Motor Driving School, Indira Colony Barmer v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2019CW/2269/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A motor driving school filed a writ petition seeking an extension to comply with the Motor Driving School Registration Guidelines, 2018. The Court held that the deadline of 31.12.2018 passed without compliance, denied further extension, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner not allowed to continue operations under the new policy.

Saindi Motor Driving School, Indira Colony Barmer… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2269/2019

¶3

Saindi Motor Driving School, Indira Colony Barmer, Through Proprietor Shri Mola Ram S/o Shri Kirta Ram Prajapat, R/o Indira Colony, Barmer (Raj).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Transport Commissioner, Transport Department 409, Sahakar Marg Jyoti Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

The Regional Transport Officer, Transport Department, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

19/02/2019

¶13

The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed which

¶14

reads as under:-

¶15

“I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to inspect the compliance made by the petitioner as soon as possible and provide suggestion if required in pursuance of Motor Vehicle Act, Rules and MDSR-2018 Scheme. II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue the stationary provided to the petitioner before and provide time for compliance of the suggestion made thereof. III. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-2269/2019]

¶18

It is apparent that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing of writ petition and in the bunch of such writ petitions, on 12.10.2018, this Court passed order which is as under :-

¶19

“Issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.

¶20

Shri S.R. Paliwal, Dy.G.C. has put in appearance in one of the Writ Petition No.15979/2018. Thus, he is directed to appear on behalf of the respondents in all identical matters which are listed today.

¶21

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant bunch of writ petitions which involve identical questions of facts and law are being decided together by this common order.

¶22

The petitioners herein are all Motor Driving Schools having licenses to operate under the Rules as they existed. The Government of Rajasthan introduced a new scheme titled as Motor Driving School Registration, 2018 (hereinafter referred as ‘MDSR Guidelines, 2018’). All the licensed motor driving schools were required to comply with the modalities laid thereunder within a period of six months form the date of issuance of the policy so as to entitle them to continue their operations. The petitioners were issued notices to comply with the MDSR Guidelines, 2018 in the month of May, 2018. They have approached this Court through these writ petitions seeking extension of time so to ensure compliance of all the modalities of the policy. It is claimed that some of the modalities prescribed under the MDSR Guidelines, 2018 are pending approval at the end of the transport authorities and clarifications are awaited.

¶23

Shri Paliwal, Dy.G.C. appearing for the respondents fairly concedes that in view of the fact that new policy requires extensive modalities and procedures, reasonable extension of time may be granted to the petitioners for ensuring full compliance of the MDSR Guidelines, 2018.

¶24

In this background, it is hereby directed that the petitioners shall ensure full compliance of MDSR Guidelines, 2018 on or before 31.12.2018. They shall get their facilities inspected by the competent authority on or before 31.12.2018. If the

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-2269/2019]

¶27

arrangements/facilities and complaint with the guidelines, are found satisfactory then the respective petitioners will be permitted to continue their operations under the new policy.

¶28

In case, the petitioners raise any grievances regarding hurdles in implementation of any policy modalities which require intervention by the transport department, they may submit a representation to this effect to the concerned authority within 30 days from today. The issue shall be resolved at the earliest and not later than within 30 days from the date of submission of such representations.

¶29

The writ petitions as well as the stay applications are disposed of in the above terms.”

¶30

Apparently, as per aforesaid directions, the petitioner was to ensure full compliance of the MDSR Guidelines on or before 31.12.2018, which have not been complied with and there is no documents to show that full compliance has been made as it was upon the counsel to show as they have made compliance of the order passed by this Court.

¶31

However, the petitioner has not been able to comply with order passed by this Court vide aforesaid orders dated 12.10.2018 and the time period up to 31.12.2018 had lapsed. No further extension can be granted. The petitioner cannot be allowed to continue their operations under the new policy till they get themselves registered under the MDSR Guidelines.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶33

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶34

Ravi Kh./90

Saindi Motor Driving School, Indira Colony Barmer v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saindi Motor Driving School, Indira Colony Barmer v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Bala Vs State and Ors.

M/S. J.K. Cement Limited Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs the Prescribed Auth. Cum Tehsildar and Anr.

Raghnath Das Vs Pushkar

Kartar Chand Vs Rent Tribunal

K.R.P. Motor Driving Training School Vs State of Rajasthan