1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5594 OF 2008 Jaishri Bhagwandas Rathi Age: 35 Yrs., occu. Prop. of Aditya Motor Driving School, R/o H.No.35, Ramnagar, Near Azad Maidan, Jalna. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary of Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) Director of Social Welfare, Pune, Tq. and Dist.Pune. 3) Dy. Regional Transport Office, Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. 4) Ramesh Motor Driving Training Institute, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon. - RESPONDENTS ***** 2 Mr.NR Jamdhade, Adv. h/for Ms. MR Jamdhade, Adv. for Petitioner; Mrs.AV Gondhalekar, AGP for Resp.Nos. 1 to 3; Mr.PM Shah, Sr. Counsel h/for Mr. AS Savant, Adv. for Respondent No.4. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 25th November, 2009. JUDGMENT (PER: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.) 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally. 2) The action of the Government in its Resolution dated 4th February, 2008 to provide training and license of driving motor vehicles to the backward class students under the scheme of opportunity of employment,is questioned by the petitioner to be ultra virus. The petitioner feels that the Government Resolution violates the statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and in particular Rule 24(1) and (2), which inhibits establishing or maintaining any driving school or establishment for imparting instructions for hire or reward in driving motor vehicle without a 3 license in form no.11 granted by the Licensing authority. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 24 envisages “ An application for grant or renewal license under sub-rule (1) shall be made in form 12 or form 13, as the case may be, to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area in which school or establishment is situated shall be accompanied by appropriate fees as specified in rule 32.” 3) The present petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation and by virtue of the directions of this Court dated 27th January, 2009, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) was deposited by the petitioner. 4) Before dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner herein, the object of the Government Policy needs to be highlighted. The Government Resolution dated 4th February, 2008 in its preamble conceive, in order to provide opportunities to the persons belonging to backward classes, the Government contemplated that the existing policy of imparting training to the backward class candidates at Jalgaon and Nashik should be extended to entire State, for which necessary applications from the interested institutions to be called. Thus, it is apparent that the Government has considered the issue at broader level, and in order to uplift the living 4 standard of the candidates belonging to the backward class, training to such youths was sought to be exercised throughout the State under a scheduled training programme for forty days in the case of drivers and eight days in the case of Conductors. The Government facilitated financial benefits @ Rs. 3520/- for the training of Light motor vehicle driver; Rs.4100 for the Heavy motor Vehicle driver and Rs.1465/- for conductors. 5) The Government, after widely publishing the tender notice, called for the tenders and during the process, three tenders were disqualified due to non-compliance of the tender conditions. 6) It was contended by the learned Sr. Counsel that the respondent, who got the tender, has entered into agreements with various training schools of driving throughout the Maharashtra and in pursuance thereto, he was making payments to the various training schools and even stipend and training fees in cash was paid. The scheme is implemented as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. A copy of such agreement is at Annexure R-23. The Government has not disputed the action of present respondent No.4 in entering into the agreements with other enterprenuers in the different regions of the State and through 5 such agencies getting the proper training to the needy candidates from the backward class. The list of such training centers, with their capacity of holding respective vehicles, is also annexed and verified by the Governmental authorities. 7) The learned Senior Counsel, representing the respondent, pointed and we accept, that there was no irregularities in the entire tender process, as it was in tune with the provisions of law. It is pertinent that the petitioner herein did not participate in the tender process. 8) Respondent no.4 has not shifted the school or establishment from the premise mentioned in the license and consequently, there is no violation of Rule 27(f) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which follows that it will not create any barrier to the Government Resolution dated 4th February, 2008. The tie up of Respondent no.4 with several institutions in the State, having been approved by the Government, it cannot be said that the Government Resolution is against the policy of opportunity of work or business to the needy candidates from the scheduled caste community. The action of the Government in issuing such directions needs to be applauded, it does not smack of any malafide. 6 However, the concerned authorities are obliged to have a surprise check as to whether the intended benefits reach the needy candidates. We expect, the authorities to test sample cases by interacting with such candidates from different Centres. There is no ultra-virusness in such notification of the Government. In this view of the matter, the petition lacks merit, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. 9) Learned Counsel for the petitioner requests that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was deposited be refunded. Though we have dismissed the writ petition, we direct that an amount of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty-five thousand) be refunded to the petitioner and rest of Rs.15,000/- be credited to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad. sd/- sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp5594.08 fldr.27.11.09