Telangana High CourtSilar Sohail vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 30 June, 2023Author:P. Madhavi DeviBench:P. Madhavi Devi[Type text]\n\n\n\n\nTHE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8571 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.2365 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.6914 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.7834 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.7872 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8345 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8354 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8360 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8368 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8390 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8566 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8825 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8856 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8859 OF 2023,\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8927 OF 2023\n                                  AND\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8988 OF 2023\n\n\n                          COMMON ORDERIn all these Writ Petitions, the prayer of the petitioners is to\n\ndeclare the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the\n\npetitioners by imposing the condition that a candidate must have\n\npossessed either Light Motor Vehicle (Transport with Badge Number)\n\nor HMV License, or both put together, continuously for a period of full\n                                                     W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch2two years and above as on the date of the Notification vide\n\nRc.No.39/Rect./Admn-1/2022 dt.25.04.2022 - SCT PC Driver and\n\nHMV License continuously for a period of full two years and above as\n\non the date of the Notification vide Rc.No.60/Rect./Admn-1/2022\n\ndt.20.05.2022 - Driver Operator in Fire Services issued by the 2nd\n\nrespondent, as improper, unjust, illegal, arbitrary, against the provisions\n\nofSection 15(1)of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 and\n\nunconstitutional and consequently to set aside the Rejection Memo\n\ngiven to the petitioners and to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the\n\npetitioners' licences as renewed underSection 15(1)of the Motor\n\nVehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 and to allow them for further\n\nselection process of driving test and final written examinations and to\n\npass such other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the\n\ncircumstances of the case.2.     Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petitions are\n\nthat the respondents have issued the Notification dt.20.05.2022 for\n\nrecruitment to the post of Driver Operator in Telangana State Disaster\n\nResponse and Fire Services Department and another Notification\n\ndt.25.04.2022 for the post of SCT PC (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police\n                                                     W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch3Constable) Driver (Men) and other posts. One of the conditions for the\n\nsaid posts was that the candidates should possess either Light Motor\n\nVehicle (Transport with Badge Number) or HMV License or both put\n\ntogether continuously for a period of full two years and above, as on the\n\ndate of the Notification.3.     It is submitted that the petitioners herein are possessing valid\n\ndriving licences, however, after their expiry, they were renewed and the\n\npetitioners obtained valid driving licences. However, the authorities\n\nhave rejected their candidature by holding that they did not have valid\n\ndriving licences for a continuous period of two years. It is submitted that\n\nby virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioners were\n\npermitted to participate in the physical efficiency test and also in the\n\nwritten examination, but the results have not been declared as directed\n\nby this Court. It is submitted that the petitioners possessed valid driving\n\nlicences and the period between the date of expiry and the application\n\nand renewal also has to be treated as continuous period of holding the\n\nlicence underSection 15(1)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as\n\namended by Act No.32 of 2019. It is submitted that after the amendment\n\nof theMotor Vehicles Actin the year 2019, the period of 30 days for\n                                                      W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch4making an application for renewal of licence has been amended as one\n\nyear prior to or one year subsequent to the date of expiry. It is submitted\n\nthat Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the said Act provides for the\n\nrenewal of driving licences from the date of expiry and the First Proviso\n\nthereto provides that the application for renewal of licence can be made\n\neither one year prior to the date of its expiry or within one year after the\n\ndate of its expiry and the date of renewal shall be the date of expiry of\n\nthe driving licence. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted\n\nthat the First Proviso cannot be read in isolation, but has to be read in\n\ntandem with the Section and as the said Section provides for the renewal\n\nof a licence from the date of its expiry, the time of one year provided\n\nunder the First Proviso should be considered as the period within which\n\nan application for renewal can be made and the renewal should be\n\nconsidered as from the date of expiry. He further submitted that before\n\nthe amendment of Section 15 by the Amendment Act of 2019, the said\n\nProviso had made it clear that the application has to be made within a\n\nperiod of 30 days from the date of its expiry and if so made, the renewal\n\nshall be considered as extended from the date of its expiry itself and\n\nonly if it is made beyond the period of 30 days, the renewal shall be\n                                                      W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch5considered from the date of renewal. He submitted that by way of\n\namendment, it is only a change of extension of the period for making an\n\napplication and not erasing the period. It is submitted that it can never be\n\ncontemplated that the application has to be made only on the date of\n\nexpiry and the extension will be considered on such date. He placed\n\nreliance upon various case law for the proposition that when an\n\napplication is made under the amended provision ofSection 15(1)of the\n\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, then the renewal will be from the date of\n\nexpiry.4.        The learned counsel for some of the other writ petitioners have\n\nalso submitted that while interpreting the statute, the purpose of\n\nconstruction has to be given to the provisions and an interpretation\n\nwhich leads to absurdity or confusion or friction or contradiction and\n\nconflict between its various provisions, or undermines, or tends to defeat\n\nor destroy the basic scheme and purpose of the enactment must be\n\neschewed. For this proposition, he placed reliance upon the decision of\n\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma and\n                                                     W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch6others (Demonetisation Case-5 J) Vs. Union of Indiaand others1.He\n\nfurther relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\n\ncase ofT. Devadasan Vs. Union of Indiaand another2 to contend that\n\na proviso or an exception cannot be so interpreted as to nullify or\n\ndestroy the main provision.He alsoplaced reliance uponthe judgment\n\nof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofUnion of India and others\n\nVs. Dileep Kumar Singh3for the proposition that a proviso does not\n\ntravel beyond the provision to which it is a proviso and therefore, the\n\ngolden rule is to read the whole section, inclusive of the proviso, in such\n\na manner that they mutually throw light on each other and result in a\n\nharmonious construction. He further submitted that theMotor Vehicles\n\nActis a beneficial legislation and in order to provide succour to the\n\nclaimants under theMotor Vehicles Act, the buffer period of making an\n\napplication has been extended to one year from the earlier period of 30\n\ndays. He submitted that under Sub-Section (4) ofSection 15and the\n\nSecond Proviso thereto, before the amendment in the year 2019, it read\n\nthat if the application is made more than five years after the driving\n\nlicence has ceased to be effective, the licensing authority may refuse to1(2023) 3 SCC 12AIR 1964 SC 1793(2015) 4 SCC 421\n                                                      W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch7renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to\n\nits satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in Sub-Section\n\n(3) ofSection 9and by virtue of amendment, the period has been\n\nrestricted to one year. Therefore, he submitted that the period of 30\n\ndays was the period for making the application for renewal of the\n\nlicence from the date of its expiry, but the application could be\n\nsubmitted later on within the period up to five years for valid renewal of\n\nlicence and it is only after lapse of five years that the candidate would\n\nhave to go for a fresh application and had to undergo and pass the test of\n\ncompetence to drive referred to in Sub-Section (3) ofSection 9. It is\n\nsubmitted that after the amendments in the year 2019 to theMotor\n\nVehicles Act, the First Proviso to Sub-Section (1) ofSection 15and the\n\nSecond Proviso to Sub-Section (4) ofSection 15have been amended to\n\nincrease the buffer period to one year before and one year after the date\n\nof expiry and the validity period also has been modified to be one year\n\nfrom the date of expiry. It is submitted that if the objects and reasons for\n\nthe amendments of theMotor Vehicles Actin 2019 are also gone into, it\n\nis clear that the authorities under theMotor Vehicles Actintended to\n\nprovide benefit of validity of the driving licence beyond the date of\n                                                     W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch8expiry up to the period of one year before or after the expiry of the\n\nlicence. Therefore, he submitted that the candidates whose licences have\n\nbeen renewed within a period of one year from the date of expiry should\n\nbe considered as having continuous valid driving licence for the\n\nselection to the posts of SCT PC Driver and Driver Operator in Fire\n\nServices Department.5.     The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the\n\nrespondents, on the other hand, relied upon the provisions of theMotor\n\nVehicles Actto contend that any application made beyond the date of\n\nexpiry will have to be considered as renewal only from the date of\n\nrenewal and the gap between the date of expiry and renewal cannot be\n\nconsidered as continuation of the licence. He therefore submitted that\n\nthe respondents have rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioners.6.     Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on\n\nrecord, this Court finds that theMotor Vehicles Actof 1988 is framed to\n\nregulate the law relating to motor vehicles. It has been held to be a\n\nbeneficial legislation to regulate and ensure road safety. The provisions\n\nof theMotor Vehicles Actare also meant to protect the pedestrians and\n\nthe persons injured in the road accidents. The licensing authority,\n                                                              W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch9therefore, prescribes certain criteria subject to the fulfilment of which,\n\nthe driving licence can be granted to an applicant.Section 9of the\n\nMotor Vehicles Act provides for grant of driving licence subject to the\n\napplicant passing the prescribed tests.Section 15thereof provides for\n\nrenewal of driving licences and for the sake of ready reference, the\n\nrelevant portion ofSection 15is reproduced hereunder:"15. Renewal of driving licences.--(1) Any licensing authority may,\n      on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the\n      provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry:Provided that in any case where the application for the\n      renewal of a licence is made either one year prior to date of its expiry\n      or within one year after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall\n      be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal:Provided further that where the application is for the renewal\n      of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the\n      applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be\n      accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the\n      same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) ofsection 8, and the\n      provisions of sub-section (4) ofsection 8shall, so far as may be, apply\n      in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's\n      licence.(2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be\n      made in such form and accompanied by such documents as may be\n      prescribed by the Central Government.W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch10(3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence\n      is made previous to, or not more than one year after the date of its\n      expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be\n      prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf.(4) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence\n      is made more than one year after the date of its expiry, the fee payable\n      for such renewal shall be such amount as may be prescribed by the\n      Central Government:Provided that the fee referred to in sub-section (3) may be\n      accepted by the licensing authority in respect of an application for the\n      renewal of a driving licence made under this sub-section if it is\n      satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause\n      from applying within the time specified in sub-section (3):Provided further that if the application is made more than one\n      year after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the licensing\n      authority shall refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the\n      applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of\n      competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) ofsection 9.(5) .....................................(6) ....................................."For the sake of adjudication of the issue before this Court, the First\n\nProviso to Sub-Section (1) ofSection 15has to be considered. As held\n\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma\n\nand others (Demonetisation Case-5 J) Vs. Union of India and others\n\n(1 supra), a proviso cannot be read in isolation but has to be considered\n                                                     W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch11in conformity with the main Section. Reading of the proviso cannot\n\nmake or render the main provision a nullity. Sub-Section (1) ofSection\n\n15provides that any licensing authority may, on an application made to\n\nit, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of theMotor\n\nVehicles Actwith effect from the date of its expiry. The first proviso\n\nthereunder provides that where the application for the renewal of a\n\nlicence is made either one year prior to the date of its expiry or within\n\none year after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed\n\nwith effect from the date of its renewal. There are two circumstances\n\nunder this proviso, the first circumstance is the application made prior to\n\nexpiry of licence and the second circumstance is the application made\n\nafter the date of expiry of licence but within one year thereafter. If the\n\nproviso were to be applied literally and if the application is made one\n\nyear prior to the date of expiry and it is renewed with effect from the\n\ndate of its renewal, then the applicant would be losing the validity of the\n\nlicence by a period of one year. However, if the application is made\n\nafter the date of expiry but within one year from the date of its expiry\n\nand the driving licence is renewed with effect from the date of its\n                                                             W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch12renewal, the applicant would be losing the period of validity within the\n\ngap of the date of expiry and the date of its renewal.7.    Therefore, it is important to ascertain the intention of the\n\nLegislator for making the amendments vide Amendment Bill, 2019.\n\nFrom the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 32 of 2019, the\n\nAmendment Bill, 2019, the following is the intention of the Legislation.(a) to facilitate grant of online learning licence;(b) to replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified\n          provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident victims\n          and their families;(c) to increase the time limit for renewal of driving licence from one\n          month to one year before and after the expiry date;(d) to increase the period of renewal of transport licence from three\n          years to five years;(e) to enable the licensing authority to grant licence even to the\n          differently abled persons;(f) to enable the States to promote public transport, rural transport\n          and last mile connectivity by relaxing any of the provisions of the\n          Act pertaining to permits;(g) to increase the fines and penalties for violation of provisions of the\n          Act; and(h) to make a provision for protection of Good Samaritans.W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch13The amendments made toSection 15are as under:"Amendment ofSection 15--InSection 15of the principal\n        Act,--(i) in sub-section (1), in the first proviso, for the words "more\n        than thirty days", the words "either one year prior to date of its expiry\n        or within one year" shall be substituted;(ii) in sub-section (3), for the words "thirty days", the words\n        "one year" shall be substituted; and(iii) in sub-section (4),--(a) for the words "thirty days", the words "one year" shall be\n        substituted; and(b) in the second proviso, for the words "five years after the\n        driving license has ceased to be effective, the licensing authority may",\n        the words "one year after the driving licence has ceased to be effective,\n        the licensing authority shall" shall be substituted."8.         The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSyed Mehaboob Vs.\n\nThe New India Assurance Company Limited4has held that theMotor\n\nVehicles Actis a beneficent legislation intended to place the claimant in\n\nthe same position that he was before the accident and to compensate him\n\nfor his loss and thus, it should be interpreted liberally so as to achieve\n\nthe maximum benefit.4(2011) 11 SCC 625\n                                                    W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch149.    Thus, it can be noticed that the intention of the Legislator for\n\namendment of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988by Act No.32 of 2019 in\n\nrespect ofSection 15was only to increase the time limit for renewal of\n\ndriving licence from one month to one year before and after the expiry\n\ndate only and not to change the date of application of the renewal. Thus,\n\nthe interpretation by the respondents of the amended provisions ofSection 15(1)of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Amendment Act 32 of\n\n2019 is misconceived. On such erroneous understanding of law, the\n\nrespondents have rejected the case of the petitioners. From the table\n\ngiven at pages 15 to 17 of the writ papers in W.P.No.8571 of 2023\n\ngiving details of each of the petitioners, their licence number and gap of\n\nrenewal, it is noticed that the gap of renewal ranged between a minimum\n\nof 1 day and a maximum of 294 days. Therefore, all the applications for\n\nrenewal are presumably within a period of one year from the date of\n\nexpiry and therefore, even though the date of renewal is subsequent to\n\nthe date of expiry, the renewal has to be considered as from the date of\n\nexpiry itself and consequently, the licence is to be considered as\n\ncontinuous.W.P.No.8571 of 2023 & batch1510.   In view thereof, the impugned Rejection Memos in respect of all\n\nthe writ petitioners are set aside.       The respondents are directed to\n\nconsider the candidature of all the writ petitioners herein as possessing\n\nvalid driving licence for a continuous period of two years and declare\n\nthe results and proceed for further selection process in accordance with\n\ntheir merit and in accordance with the rules and conditions of the subject\n\nNotifications.11.   All the Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to\n\ncosts in all these Writ Petitions.12.   Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all these Writ Petitions\n\nshall stand closed.___________________________\n                                          JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI\n\n\nDate: 30.06.2023\nSvv