Judgment

MADON, J. :- This group of four appeals by special leave is directed against a common 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. 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).

2. The Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 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. He also held a licence to impart training in driving heavy motor vehicles. After completion 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. The Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2489 of 1977, had applied on July 20, 1976, for a learners licence to drive heavy motor vehicles. The Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2490 of 1977 as also the Respondent in civil Appeal No. 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. After successful completion of their training each of them had applied for a licence for driving heavy motor vehicles. All the aforesaid applications were rejected by the Licensing Authority on the ground that the Respondents did not satisfy the requirements of the impugned sub-rule (2) of Rule 5. The respondents thereupon approached the Karnataka High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing separate writ petitions. The High Court struck down the said sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 on the ground that it was repugnant to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and allowed the said four writ petitions. The Appellants, who are the State of Karnataka and the concerned Regional Transport Officers, have filed these appeals by special leave against the said judgment and order.

3. To appreciate what the High Court held and the arguments advanced at the Bar before us, it is necessary to refer first to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2 of the Act is the interpretation clause. Clause (9) of Section 2 prior to its amendment by Act 47 of 1978 defined a "heavy motor vehicle" as meaning "a transport vehicle or omnibus the registered laden weight of which, or a motor car or tractor the unladen weight of which, exceeds 11000 kilograms". By the aforesaid amending Act with effect from January 16, 1979, the said clause (9) was substituted by a new clause (9) and clause (9-A) which define "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" respectively. We are not concerned with these amendments in the present appeals. Clause (13) of Section 2 defines a "light motor vehicle" as meaning "a transport vehicle or omnibus the registered laden weight of which, or a motor car or tractor the unladen weight of which, does not exceed 4000 kilograms." Clause (14) of Section 2 prior to its amendment by the aforesaid Amending Act defined a "medium motor vehicle" as meaning "any motor vehicle other than a motor cycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle, heavy motor vehicle or road-roller." By the said Amending Act, with effect from January 16, 1979, Clause (14) was substituted by a new clause (14) and clause (14-A) which define "medium goods vehicle" and "medium passenger motor vehicle" respectively. We are equally not concerned with these amendments in the present appeals. Chapter II of the Act deals with licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. Section 3(1) of the Act prohibits any person from driving a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the vehicle. It further prohibits