Thereafter by the aforesaid Notification No.
The said substituted clause aa provides as follows aa the minimum qualifications of persons to whom licences to drive transport vehicles are issued, the time within which such qualifications are to be acquired by persons holding immediately before the companymencement of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1969, licences to drive transport vehicles, and the duties, functions and companyduct of such persons.
By the said amending Act, with effect from January 16, 1979, Clause 14 was substituted by a new clause 14 and clause 14A which define medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle respectively.
It provides as follows No authorisation to drive a heavy motor vehicle shall be granted unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority companycerned that he has had at least two years experience in driving any medium motor vehicles.
HD 16 TMR 73 dated July 7,1976 as being ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Act 4 of 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
He also held a licence to impart training in driving heavy motor vehicles.
The Respondent in Civil Appeal No.
The Respondent in Civil Appeal No.
2488 2491 of 1977 Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 25th February, 1977 of the Karnatka High Court in writ Petitions Nos.
After successful companypletion of their training each of them had applied for a licence for driving heavy motor vehicles.
The Appellants, who are the State of Karnataka and the companycerned Regional Transport Officers, have filed these appeals by special leave against the said judgment and order.
The respondents thereupon approached the Karnataka High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing separate writ petitions.
The Respondent in Civil Appeal No.
It was on the basis of this sub rule that the Respondents applications for driving licence were rejected by the licensing authority.
All the aforesaid applications were rejected by the Licensing Authority on the ground that the Respondents did number satisfy the requirements of the impugned sub rule 2 of rule 5.
By the aforesaid amending Act with effect from January 16, 1979, the said clause 9 was substituted by a new clause 9 and clause 9A which define heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle respectively.
After companypletion of his training he obtained a certificate from the said driving school and applied on July 22, 1976 through it for a licence to drive heavy motor vehicles.
2491 of 1977 were both running schools for imparting training in driving heavy motor vehicles and each held a licence to impart training in driving heavy motor vehicles and had trained several persons.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
2488 of 1977 had obtained a learners licence for driving heavy motor vehicles under the said Rules and had obtained training in Crown Motor Driving School, Bangalore, which was an Institution recognised by the Government of Karnataka under rule 30 of the said Rules.
2489 of 1977 had applied on July 20, 1976 for a learners licence to drive heavy motor vehicles.
2490 of 1977 as also the Respondent in Civil Appeal No.
6432,6433,6486 6526 of 1976 Nettar for the Appellant.
K.Sen, K.N.Bhatt, S.R.Bhatt and N.Ganapathy for the Respondents.
HD 16 TMR 73 dated July 7, 1976, the impugned sub rule 2 of rule 5 was made by the State of Karnataka.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADON,J. This group of four appeals by special leave is directed against a companymon judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court in four writ petitions whereby the High Court struck down sub rule 2 inserted in rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, by Notification No.
