Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 783
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACJ, J.B.PARDIWALA, J
GUJARAT AUTO RIXSA FEDERATION – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 44 of 2011 | CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7370 of 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR ABDUL H CHHORIYA
For the Respondents: MR JK SHAH, ASST. GOVT. PLEADER
Court upheld the imposition of minimum educational qualifications for transport vehicle drivers, emphasizing the need for communication skills and knowledge of traffic regulations.
Headnote:(A) Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 - Rule 8 - Minimum educational qualification for obtaining a driver’s licence for transport vehicles - Contention against the rule on grounds of infringement of the right to livelihood - The court found the imposition of an educational requirement reasonable, emphasizing the necessity for knowledge of traffic regulations and communication for transport drivers. (Paras 2, 8, 12)
(B) Constitution of India - Presumption of constitutionality - The petitioners bear the burden of proving the unconstitutionality of the legislative provisions, which was not discharged.
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioners contend that the imposition of a minimum educational qualification restricts the right to earn a livelihood for many.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the educational requirement for transport drivers aids their ability to navigate public interactions and obey traffic rules.
Issues: The key issue was whether the educational requirement imposed was unconstitutional or unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that such legislative provisions are presumed constitutional unless proven otherwise and found the imposition of minimum educational qualifications justified.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to educational qualification rule impacting livelihood. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments surrounding the educational requirement's validity. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's examination of vehicle classification and educational necessity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 4. legislative presumption of constitutionality emphasized. (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion dismissing the application. (Para 10 , 14) |
JUDGEMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 44 of 2011 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7370 of 2011 In WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 44 of 2011 For Approval and Signature:
- HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================== =============== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?` 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================== =============== GUJARAT AUTO RIXSA FEDERATION & ANR.
- Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS ========================================== =============== Appearance :
- MR ABDUL H CHHORIYA for PETITIONERS.
- MR JK SHAH, ASST. GOVT. PLEADER for RESPONDENTS ========================================== =============== CORAM : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA 2/11 JUDGMENT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 30/01/2012 C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)
1) By this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioners, the Gujarat Autorickshaw Federation being represented by its President and also its Zonal Vice-President have challenged the legality of Rule 8 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 which has been given effect from April 10, 2007 by which a minimum educational qualification has been prescribed for getting driving licence for transport vehicles for those persons who want to have a new licence.
2) According to the writ-petitioners, the imposition of such a restriction of having minimum educational qualification of passing 8th standard would take away the right of huge number of persons to have their right of earning livelihood by becoming a driver of transport vehicles. It is further contended that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that such imposition of restriction is otherwise permissible, at least eight years time should have been given to give effect to the said amended provisions so that the persons who have already taken steps for becoming driver of a transport vehicle are not deprived of such rights.
3) The writ-application has been contested by the 3/11 JUDGMENT respondent thereby contending that there is no illegality in imposition of such minimum educational qualification for getting licence as driver of transport vehicles when those drivers are required to meet various kinds of people and also obey various traffic signals and restrictions imposed under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under, which require some knowledge of English.
4) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the Act],
- vehicles are classified into two types, viz. transport vehicles and non-transport vehicles. The eligibility criteria for obtaining licence for driving these two types of vehicles are different and they are specified in the Act.
5) So far as the subject matter of the present litigation is concerned, viz. driving licence for autorickshaw which is used for carrying passengers for hire on reward, there is no dispute that the same is a 'transport vehicle' within the meaning of section 2(47) of th
