The provisions of Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 do not specifically prohibit the holding of a Motor Training School in more than one premises, but the same are regulatory in nature and the whole purpose of the said provisions is to regulate the running of Motor Training Schools for the purpose of preventing mushrooming of Motor Training Schools or establishments which are not properly equipped for imparting proper training to learners.

The short question which has arisen for determination of this Court in the present Writ Application is whether under Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, a Motor Training School or establishment already operating under a licence can be permitted extension of such establishment in a separate premises.

2. The petitioner which is a Motor Training School having a valid licence Issued by the Licensing Authority, Calcutta, which has bet n renewed upto June 1999, admittedly situates at premises No. 50, Prince Rahimuddin Lane, Calcutta-700 033. The petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of the said Motor Training School.

3. On 7th December, 1994, the petitioners applied before the Licensing Authority praying for extending the library and traffic room of the said school in another premises being 8/1B, Chakraberia Road (South). Calcutta-700 025, as according to the petitioner the existing premises of the said school is not sufficient to afford better library facilities including traffic room accommodation with different parking signals and route safety devices for the learners of motor driving. It is alleged that on the basis of the said application, inspection of the aforesaid premises was duly made by the Licensing Authority on January 1995 and allegedly he was satisfied about the suit ability of the said premises, but subsequently no step was taken to give the requisite permission and to make the necessary endorsement on the licence permitting extension of such school in the aforesaid new premises. The petitioner accordingly moved this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution being C. O. No. 13483(W) of 1995 in the Appellate Side Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court whereupon Satyabrata Sinha, J. by an order dated 11th August, 1995, was pleased to dispose of the Writ Application by directing the Licensing Authority to consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner as early as possible. As the Licensing Authority was not disposing the application in respect of such order, the petitioner had moved an application for contempt. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 12th December. 1995, such prayer of the petitioner bas been rejected by the Licensing Authority on the ground that under the present relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder such permission cannot be granted.

4. The main contention of the petitioner is that no provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules prohibits extension of such Motor Training School or establishment in a different premises and accordingly the Licensing Authority could not have refused such permission of the petitioners legally. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that in at least 3 other cases the Licensing Authority has granted such permission namely extension of such school in a different premises and accordingly the action of the Licensing Authority to refuse such permission to the petitioners is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory.

5. The contention of the respondents on the other hand is that Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules will indicate that the aforesaid provision contemplate the establishment for running of such a school in one premises and therefore to permit extension of the school in different premises will be in contravention of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and Rules. It has also been contended that to permit such extension will amount to permit such an applicant to run another Motor Training School in a different premises without licence.

6. As to the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is being discriminated against inasmuch as in case of other Motor Training Schools such permission has been granted, while such fact has not been denied and it appears from the records produced by the respondents under the order of the Court that such permission for extension was granted in case of at least 3 other Motor Training Schools, namely, Beng