STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. versus H. GANESH KAMATH ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 31-03-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

··~ 
... 
.J 
665 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
H. GANESH KAMATH ETC. ETC. 
March 31, 1983 
.B 
[D.P. MADON AND SABYASACHI MUKllARJI; JJ.J 
. 
Karnataka Motor Vehi"/e Ru/rs, 1983, Sub-rule (2) inserted in Rule 5 
by the Notification No. H.D. 16 T.M.R. 73 dated July 7, 1976, whether inconsis-
tent with and ultra vi res (JI the provisiOns of sub-section 7 and 8 of Section 7 ·of 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (A<t lV of 1939)-words and phrases "for the time 
being disqualified for holding or obtaining a drii•ing licence", meoning of. 
Under Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the grant of a driving 
licence, a rerson (1) must not be disqualified as to age prescribed under 
Section 4 ; (ii) n1ust submit.a medical ce1 tificate in Form 'C', if he wishes to be 
a paid employee or to drive a transport \Chicle, (iii) must not be suffering from 
ano disease or disability noted -in Second Schedute and (iv) 1nust pass to the 
satisfaction of the licensi r g authority the test of competence to drive specified in 
the Third Schedule. Under sub-section 7 of Section 7, the test of competen(;e 
to drive shall be carried out .in a vehicle of the type to which the application 
refers, and, for the purposes of Part I of the test, (a) a-r:erson. who passes the 
test in driving a heavy motor vehicle shall be deemed also to have passed the 
test in driving any medium motor vehicl'e and (b) a person who passes the test 
in driving a medium motor vehicle shall be dee1ned also to have passed the test 
in driving any light motor vehicle-respectively. 
Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules 1963 
prescribing certain years of experience in driving before gran.ting the licence was 
struck down by the Mysore High Court in Cvril Lobo v. State of Mysore and 
Ors (1970)_ 2 Mys. L.J. 410 as repugnant to Sections 4 and 7 (8) of the M.V. Act 
After the amendment of Section 21 (2) of the M.V. Act, by Act LY! of 
1969 substituting clause (aa) in section 25 (2) of the M.V. Act with effect from 
October 1, 1970 by the impugned Notification No. H.D. 16 TMR 73 dated 
c 
D 
E 
F 
July 7, 1976, the State of Karnatka introduced a new sub-rule (2) in Rule 
G 
5 to the effect : " No authorisation to drive ~ heavy motor vehicle shall be 
granted unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority concerned ·that he 
has had at least two years experience in driving any medium motor vehicle". 
The applications for a licence fcir .driving heavy motor vehicle of all the 
respondents who had either training earlier in a Government recognised Motor 
, Training School or who were themselves running such schools and had 
trained many, were refused on the basis of sub·rule (2) of Rule 5. The 
f!i~h Court of Karnataka, followin~ C1ril Lobo's case once a~ain struck qown 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1983] 2 S.C.R. 
the impugned Notification introducing the sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 as ultra vires 
Section 4 and 7(8) of the M.V. Act, 1939. Hence the appeals by the State. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD I : I Sub-rule (2) inserted in Rule 5 of the Karnatka Motor Vehicle& 
Rules, 1963, by the Notification No. H.D. 16 TMR 73 dated July 7, 1976 was 
ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. [675 B-C] 
1 : 2 Though the substituted clause (aa) inserted in •ub-section (2) of 
Section 21 of the Act confers power upon State GOvernment to make rules 
pro~d1ng for the minimum qualifications of persons to whom licences to drive 
a transport vehicle are issued such power cannot include within its scope the 
power to make a rule contrary to the provisions of the Act conferring the rule-
making power. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that 
the conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-
making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling 
Act or which is inconsistent therew1tlror repugnant thereto. 
[674 C-E] 
1 : 3 The. provision of sub-iule (2) of Rule 5 are obviously inconsistent 
with the provisions of sub.sections (7) and (8)·of Section 7 of the MV Act, 
The said sub-rule does, not merely prescribe a qualification not provided in the 
Act, but prescribes a qualification which is contrary to that provided in the 
Act. Under sub-section (8) of Section 7 on saiisfying the conditions provided 
in sections 4 and 7 and on the payment of the requisite fee, the applicant 
becomes entitled to the grant of a driving licence. This rjght of a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.