Dipak Misra, C.J.

1. In this public interest litigation, the National Association of the Deaf and another describing themselves as pro bono publico have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction commanding the Respondents to grant driving licences to deaf persons and further to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of any policy decision restraining or creating any kind of restriction on the part of the deaf persons to get the driving licences.

2. The factual matrix, as unfurled in the writ petition, are that the Petitioner No. 1 is a voluntary non-government organization and the Petitioner No. 2 is a person whose hearing is impaired. The aim of the Petitioner No. 1 organization is to promote the rights and equality of life of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in India and to foster a united front of deaf people across the different states of India and to promote equal rights at all levels in all fields of life and to encourage the interaction of the deaf people through meetings at both national and regional levels. It is put forth that a writ petition being WP(C) No. 208/2006 was preferred before the Apex Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.5.2006 permitting the Petitioner No. 1 to make a representation to the concerned authorities. Thereafter, the Petitioners submitted a representation on 22.2.2007 to the Secretary of the Ministry of Surface Transport asking for issuance of driving licence to the deaf persons. In response to the said representation, a communication was sent on 10.4.2007 by the concerned department of the Government of India informing that the department was considering the matter of issuing driving licence to deaf persons with Automotive Research Association of India, Director General of Health Services and National Road Safety Council and it was further intimated that taking note of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short the 1989 Rules') and discussing with the Technical Standing Committee, the issue was under consideration. As pleaded, various other communications were sent but nothing was further responded.

3. It is apt to note that the Petitioner No. 2 had applied for driving licence under the 1989 Rules for grant of learner's licence on 24.6.2009 which was rejected on the ground that he was suffering from hearing impairment. It is contended that the deaf persons are protected under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity the 1995 Act') and they are constitutionally entitled to be treated at par under the umbrella of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that in the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act') and the Rules framed thereunder, though there is no prohibition for grant of licence to totally deaf persons, yet on the medical form, questions are included in relation to deafness. That apart, in the certificate of medical evidence, there is a provision for detailing the deafness of the applicant which is totally unwarranted. It is contended that the authorities cannot deny the licence merely on the ground of deafness without any specific medical opinion or aid of any certificate whether deafness, per se, impairs or affects the driving skills of an applicant.

4. Be it placed on record, the Petitioners have referred to UN Multilateral Road Traffic Convention of 1952, UN Convention on Road Traffic of 1968, Section 2(i) of the 1995 Act and the United Nation's Convention on the persons with disabilities (hereinafter referred to as the disability convention') which was ratified by India in October, 2007 to pyramid the contention that a person who has an international driving licence can drive in India though he is deaf and a deaf person in India if goes abroad can get an international driving licence and would be eligible to drive in India whereas he i