Holding

Sub‑rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, is ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Summary

The State of Karnataka and Regional Transport Officers appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s decision striking down sub‑rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, which required a two‑year experience of driving a medium motor vehicle before granting a licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle. The appellants argued that clause (aa) of section 21(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 gave the State power to prescribe such additional qualifications. The Court held that the rule‑making power conferred by the Act does not permit the State to enact provisions that are inconsistent with or contrary to the express provisions of the Act, particularly sections 4 and 7(7)‑(8) which already define the qualifications for a licence. The Court further clarified that the phrase “disqualification for holding or obtaining a licence” in section 7 refers only to disqualifications enumerated in sections 15‑18 of the Act, not to qualifications imposed by rules. Consequently, sub‑rule (2) of Rule 5 was declared ultra vires and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether sub‑rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, is ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Whether clause (aa) of section 21(2) of the Act empowers the State to prescribe additional licensing qualifications that conflict with sections 4 and 7 of the Act.
Interpretation of the term “disqualification for holding or obtaining a licence” in section 7(1) and (8) – does it include disqualifications created by rules?
Whether the State’s rule‑making power can be exercised to impose qualifications beyond those provided in the parent Act.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 18, s. 21, s. 4, s. 7(7), s. 7(8)
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1978

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actrule‑making powerultra vireslicensing qualificationsdisqualificationstatutory interpretationKarnataka Motor Vehicles Rulesheavy motor vehicle licenceCyril Lobo case

Judgment

665

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
A
v.

H. GANESH KAMATH ETC. ETC.

March 31, 1983 .B
[D.P. MADON AND SABYASACHI MUKllARJI; JJ.J

. Karnataka Motor Vehi"/e Ru/rs, 1983, Sub-rule (2) inserted in Rule 5
by the Notification No. H.D. 16 T.M.R. 73 dated July 7, 1976, whether inconsis-
tent with and ultra vi res (JI the provisiOns of sub-section 7 and 8 of Section 7 ·of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (A<t lV of 1939)-words and phrases "for the time
c
being disqualified for holding or obtaining a drii•ing licence", meoning of.

Under Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the grant of a driving
licence, a rerson (1) must not be disqualified as to age prescribed under
Section 4 ; (ii) n1ust submit.a medical ce1 tificate in Form 'C', if he wishes to be
a paid employee or to drive a transport \Chicle, (iii) must not be suffering from D
ano disease or disability noted -in Second Schedute and (iv) 1nust pass to the
satisfaction of the licensi r g authority the test of competence to drive specified in
the Third Schedule. Under sub-section 7 of Section 7, the test of competen(;e
to drive shall be carried out .in a vehicle of the type to which the application
refers, and, for the purposes of Part I of the test, (a) a-r:erson. who passes the
test in driving a heavy motor vehicle shall be deemed also to have passed the E
test in driving any medium motor vehicl'e and (b) a person who passes the test
in driving a medium motor vehicle shall be dee1ned also to have passed the test
in driving any light motor vehicle-respectively.

Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules 1963
··~ prescribing certain years of experience in driving before gran.ting the licence was
struck down by the Mysore High Court in Cvril Lobo v. State of Mysore and F
Ors (1970)_ 2 Mys. L.J. 410 as repugnant to Sections 4 and 7 (8) of the M.V. Act

... After the amendment of Section 21 (2) of the M.V. Act, by Act LY! of
1969 substituting clause (aa) in section 25 (2) of the M.V. Act with effect from
.J October 1, 1970 by the impugned Notification No. H.D. 16 TMR 73 dated
July 7, 1976, the State of Karnatka introduced a new sub-rule (2) in Rule G
5 to the effect :" No authorisation to drive ~ heavy motor vehicle shall be
granted unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority concerned ·that he
has had at least two years experience in driving any medium motor vehicle".

The applications for a licence fcir .driving heavy motor vehicle of all the
respondents who had either training earlier in a Government recognised Motor H
, Training School or who were themselves running such schools and had
trained many, were refused on the basis of sub·rule (2) of Rule 5. The
f!i~h Court of Karnataka, followin~ C1ril Lobo's case once a~ain struck qown
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 2 S.C.R.

the impugned Notification introducing the sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 as ultra vires
A Section 4 and 7(8) of the M.V. Act, 1939. Hence the appeals by the State.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD I : I Sub-rule (2) inserted in Rule 5 of the Karnatka Motor Vehicle&
Rules, 1963, by the Notification No. H.D. 16 TMR 73 dated July 7, 1976 was •
B ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. [675 B-C]

1 : 2 Though the substituted clause (aa) inserted in •ub-section (2) of
Section 21 of the Act confers power upon State GOvernment to make rules
pro~d1ng for the minimum qualifications of persons to whom licences to drive
a transport vehicle are issued such power cannot include within its scope the
power to make a rule contrary to the provisions of the Act conferring the rule-
c making power. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that
the conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-
making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling
Act or which is inconsistent therew1tlror repugnant thereto. [674 C-E]

1 : 3 The. provision of sub-iule (2) of Rule 5 are obviously inconsistent
with the provisions of sub.sections (7) and (8)·of Section 7 of the MV Act,
D The said sub-rule does, not merely prescribe a qualification not provided in the
Act, but prescribes a qualification which is contrary to that provided in the
Act. Under sub-section (8) of Section 7 on saiisfying the conditions provided
in sections 4 and 7 and on the payment of the requisite fee, the applicant
becomes entitled to the grant of a driving licence. This rjght of an applicant
for a licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle is sought to be whittled down by
the said rule 5(2) and that too by providing a condition contrary to the
E provisions of Section 7(7) (a). [674 A-CJ .

Cyril Lobo v. The State of Mysore & Anr. (1970) 2 Mys. L.J.P. 410, .._
approved.

2 : 1 The disqualification for holding or obtaining a licence would not
include disqualifications prescribed by a rule made by virtue of the power
conferred by clause (aa) of Section 21\2). [674 F]

2: 2 Sections 15 to 17 of the Act prescribe the cases in which a p¢~on
can be disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. Section 18(1)
providl·s that a person in respect of whom any disqualification order _is made
-
G &hall be debarred to the extent and for the period specified in such order for
·holding or obtaining a driving licence and the driving licence, if any, held by
such person at the date of the ord~r shall cease to be effective to such extent
and during such period. [674 G-Hl

2:3 The words in sub-sections (1) and (8) of Section 7, therefore, refer to
H a disqualification for holding or obtaining _a driving licence incurred under
sections 15 to 17 of the Act and not to any disqualification provided for in the
rules. Had the i~tention of the Legislature been to provide also for a
c)isqualification pres9ribed by the rules, sub sections (1) and (8) of section 7
KARNATAKA v. H.O. KAMATH (Madon, J.) '667

would have been suitably amended when clause (aa) was substituted for the
old clause (aa) in Section 21(2) by inserting in the said sub-sections the words A
"under this Act or the rules made thcreunde'r" or by inserting other appropriate
,- .. , words. [674 f!; 675 A-BJ

CIVIL APPELL~TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2488-2491
of 1977
B
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 25th February, 1977 of the Karnatka High Court in writ Petitions
Nos. 6432, 6433, 6486 & 6526 of 1976

N. Netiarfor the Appellant.
c
A.K. Sen, K.N. Bhatt, S.R. Bhatt and N. Ganapathy for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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 petitionc 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) E
· (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
'
The Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2488 of 1977 had obtained
a learner's licence for driving heavy motor vehicles under the said
Rules and had obtained training in Crown Motor Driving School,
Bangalore, which was an mstitution recognised l>Y the Government of F
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 Ciyil Appeal No. 2489 of 1977 G
had applied on July 20, 1976 for a learner's licence to drive heavy
motor vehicles. The Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2490 of 1977
1lS 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 H
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 wer~
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983) 2 S.C.R.

rejected by the Licensing Authority on the ground that the
A 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·
B 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.

To appreciate what the High Court held and the argume~ts
c 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 interpreta-
tion 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
D 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
· (9A) 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
E motor vehicle" as meaning "a transport vehicle or omnibus the
registered laden weight of which, or a motor car o,r 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
F 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 J!lnuary 16, 1979, Clause (14) was substituted by a
new clause (14) and clause (14A) which define "medium goods
vehicle" and "medium passenger motor vehicle" respectively. We
are equally not concerned with these amendments in the present \
G appeals. Chapter II of the Act deals with licensing of driners 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
effectiye driving licence authorizing him to drive the vehicle. It
furt~er prohibits an~ person from driving a motor vehicle in any
H pubbc place as a paid employee or from driving a transport vehicle
unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. Section 4
pre~cribes the age limit in connection with the driving of motor
vehicles. Under that section no person under the age of 18 shalJ
kARNATAKA JI. H.G. KAMATH (Madon, J.) 669

drive a motor vehicle in any public place and subject to the provisions
of section 14 no person under the age of 20 years shall A
drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Section 7 deals with
the grant of driving licences. The relevant provisions of section 7 at
the material time were as follows :

"7. Grant of driving licence-

"(l) Any person who is not disqualified under section
4 for driving a motor vehicle and who is not
for the time being disqualified for holding or
obtaining a driving licence may ·apply to the
licensing authority having jurisdiction in the
area-
c
for the issue to hlm of a· driving licence.

(3) Where the application is for a driv'ng licence to drive·
as a paid employee or to drive a transport vehicle, or
I)
where in any other case the licensing authority for
reasons to be stated in writing so requires, the
application shall be accompanied by a medical
certificate irr Form C, as set forth in the First
Schedule, signed by a registered medical practitioner.
E
( 5) If, from the application or from the medical certi-
ficate referred to ·in sub-section (3), it appears that
the applicant is suffering from any disease or disabi-
lity specified in the Second Schedule or any other
disease or disability which is likely to cause the
driving by him of a motor vehicle of the class which
F
he would be authorized by the driving licence applied
for to drive to be a source of danger to the public or
) to the passengers, the licensing authority shall refttse
to issue the driving licence.
G
(6) No driving licence shall be issued to any applicant
unless-

he passes to the satisfaction of the licensing
authority the test of competence to drive
specified in the Thlrd Sche.dule : H

(7) The test of competence to drive shall be carried out
in a vehicle of the type to which the application
6'!0 SUPREME CoVRT REPORTS [I 983j 2 s.c.R.

refers, and, for the purposes of Part I of the test, -
A
(a) a person who passes the test in driving a heavy
motor vehicle shall be deemed also to have
passed the test in driving any medium motor
vehicle or light motor vehicle ;
B (b) a person who p;tsses the test in driving a medium
motor vehicle shall be deemed also to have
passed the· test in driving any light motor
vehicle.

c (8) When an application has been duly made to the
appror>riate licensing authority and the applicant has
satisfied such authority of his physical fitness and of
his competence to,drive and has paid to the authority
a fee of eleven rupees, the licensing authority shall
grant the applicant .a driving-licence unless the
D applicant is disqualified under section 4 for driving a
motor vehicle or is for the time being disqualified for
holding or obtaining a driving licence :

It may be mentioned that in view of the insertion of new
clauses (9), (9A), (14) and (14A) in section 2 by Act 47 of 1978 sub-
E section 7 of section 7 has also been amended so as to provide for a
person passing the test for driving a heavy goods vehicle, a heavy
passenger motor vehicle, a medium goods vehicle and a m'edium
passenger motor vehicle. As all these amendments are subsequent to
the writ petitions filed by the Respondents and came into force witr
effect- froin January 16, 1979, we are not concerned with them in
F these appeals.

The Second Schedule to the Act specifies the diseases and
disabilities absolutely disqualifying a person for obtaining a licence
to drive·a motor vehicle or a public service vehicle. The Third
Schedule to the Act sets out in de!ttil what the test of competence to
G drive should consist of. Section 21 of the Act confers rule-making
power upon the State Governments. Sub-section (I) of that section is
in general terms and confers powers upon a State Government to
make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of
Chapter TI of the Act.· Without prejudice to the generality of the
H above power sub-section (2) of section 21 enumerates specific matters·
in. respect of which a State Government may make rules. In
pursuance of the power conferred by section 21 the Government of
Mysore made the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, now known
KARNATAKA v. iI.o. KAMATH (Madon, J)

as the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963. Chapter II of the
said rules deals with the licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. Rule 4 A
[ prescribes that the licensing authority for issue of driving licences shall
be the Regional Transport Officer of the region concerned. Rule 6
confers powers upon the licensing authority to which applications are
made for authorization to drive a transport vehicle, to make enquiries
regarding the character and antecedents of the applicant notwith·
standing that the applicant had previously passed the test. Rule 5 of B
this Chapter deals with the authorization to drive transport vehicles
ahd the necessity for such authorization. Under sub-rule (I} of rule
5 no person is to drive.a transport vehicle unless a licence shall have
been granted or countersigned by the licensing authority. Sub-rules
(2) and (3) of the said rule 5 ~s originally mad~ provided as follows :
c
"(2} No authorization to drive a medium transport vehicle
under section 3 (1) of the Act, shall be granted unless
the' applicant satisfies the licensing authority that he
has had at least one year's experience in driving any
motor vehicle, other than a motor cycle. D

(3) No authorization to drive a heavy transport vehicle
or a stage carriage or a contract carriage other than
Motor Cab and Autorickshaw sliall be granted unless
the applicant satisfies the licensing authority that he
has had at least three years' experience in driving ·
E
any medium motor vehicle.

Provided that for grant of authorization to drive
Motor Cab, it shall be sufficient if the applicant has
had two years' experience in driving any Motor F
Vehicle other than a Motor Cycle, and provided
further that for grant of authorization to drive an
Auto-rickshaw, no previous experience in driving
shall be necessary."

The validity of sub-rules (2) and (3} of rule 5 was challenged G
before the Mysore High Court in Cyril Lobo v. State of Mysore &
Ors.('} The Court held that there was a clear repugnancy between
sub-rules (2) and (3) of rule 5 on the one hand and sections 4 and
7(8) of the Act on the other and that for the said reason the s·aid
sub-rules were ultra vires of the Act.
H

(1) (1970) 2 Mysore Law Journal 410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1913] 2 s.c.ii..

By Act 56 of 1969 with effect from OCtober 1, 1970, clause·(aa)
A of section 21(2) of the Act was substituted. The said substituted
clause (aa) provides as follows :

"(aa) the minimum qualifications of persons to whom
licences to drive transport vehicles are issued, the
B time within. which such qualifications are to be
acquired by persons holding immediately before the
commencement of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
Act, 1969, licences to drive transport vehicles, and
the duties, functions and conduct of such persons."

c Thereafter by the aforesaid NotiftcationNo. HD 16 TMR 73
dated July 7, 1976, the impugned sub-rule (2) of rule 5 was made by
the State of Karnataka. It provides as follows :

"(2) No authorisation to drive a heavy motor vehicle
shall be granted unless the applicant satisfies the
D licensing authority concerned that he has had at least
two years experience in driving any medium motor
vehicles."

It was on the basis of this sub-rule that the Respondents'
E applications for driving licence were rejected by the licensing
authority.

At the hearing of t:1ese appeals the correctness of the decision
of the Mysore High Court in Cyril Lobo v. State of Mysore & Ors.
was not challenged before us. What was, however, contended by the
F Appellants was that by reason of the substituted clause (aa) in sub-
section (2) of section 21, the State of Karnqtka had the power to
prescribe qualifications of persons to whom licences to drive transport
vehicles are issued and that what the said rule 5; 2) did l\'aS to
prescribe additional qualifications which an applicant for a licencno \
G drive a heavy motor vehicle was to possess before he became entitled
to the grant of such licence, and that by virtue of this specific power
conferred upon the State Governments by section 21(2) (aa), the
State of Karnataka could validly prescribe the qualifications laid
down in Rule 5(2l. On behalf of the Respondents it was submitted
H that rule-making power could not be so conferred as to enable the ·
rule-making authority to travel beyond the scope of the parent Act
or to frame a rule which is repugnant or contrary to an expres&
provision of the parent Act.
KARNATAKA v. H.G. KA MATH (Madon, i.)

The Karnataka High Court in its judgment under appeal has
held that : the impugned rule 5(2) is repugnant to the provisions of A
sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 7 of the Act on the very same
grounds upon which the original sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 were
struck down by that Court in Cyril Lobo's case. That there is a
repugnancy between the said rule 5(2) and section 7 of the Act, is
apparent on a plain reading of these provisions.· The qualifications B
for obtaining a driving licence are laid down in sections 4 and 7 of
the Act. Section 4 prescribes the qualification as to age. Under
sub-section (8) of section 7 a person who is not disqualified under
section 4 for driving a motor vehicle and who is not for the time
being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence and who
is not suffering from any disease or disability specified in the Second C
Schedule to the Act and h~s passed the test of competence to drive
specified in the Third Schedule of the Act carr_ied out in a vehicle of
the type to which his application for a drivin1; licence refers, is
entitled, on payment of the prescribed fee, to be granted the driving
licence applied for by him. It ·is pertinent to note that under
section 7(7) the test of competence to drive is to be carried out in a D
vehicle of the type to which the application refers. Thus, what the
Act contemplates and requires is competence in driving the type of
vehicle in respect of which the applicant is desirous of obiaining a
driving licence. Further, so far as the test of competence set out
in the Trurd Schedule' to the Act is concerned, for the purpose of E
part I of the test, n person who passes the test in driving a heavy
motor vehicle is also to be deemed to have passed the test in driving
any medium motor vehicle or light motor vehicle. Thus, for the
purpose of passing the test of competence to drive a ·heavy motor
vehicle a person is not required to possess any experience in driving
a medium motor vehicle. The requirement of the said sub-rule 5(2) F
that an applicant for a licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle. should
satisfy the concerned licensing authority that he has had at least two
years' experience in driving any medium motor vehicle necessarily
implies that such applicant has possessed a licence to drive a medium
.motor vehicle for a period of at least two years. Thus, while from
clause (a) of sub-section (7) of section 7 it automatically follows that G
a person who passes the test in driving a heavy' motor vehicle is to be
deemed also to have passed the test in driving any medium motor
vehicle,· under the said sub-rule (2) of rule 5 he cannot obtain a
licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle unless he has already possessed
a licence to drive a medium motor vehicle and has experiencein H
driving it for a period of at least two years which licence he could not
614 StlJrREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 2 S.C.R.

A obtain unless he has previously passed the test in driving a medium
motor vehicle. Thus, the provisions of the said sub-rule (2) of
rule 5. are obviously inconsistent with the provisions of sub-sections
(7) and (8) of section 7. The said sub-rule does not merely prescribe
a qualification not provided for in the Act, but prescribes a qualifica-
tion which is contrary to that provided in the Act. Under sub-section
B (8) of section 7 on satisfying the conditions provided in sections 4 and
7 and on the payment of the requisite fee, the applicant becomes •
entitled to the grant of a driving licence. This right of an applicant
for a licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle is sought to be whittled
down by the said rule 5 (2) and that too by providing a condition
contrary to the provisions of section 7(7) (a). Though the substituted
c clause (aa) inserted in sub-section (2) of section 21 confers power
upon a State Government to make rules providing for the minimum
qualifications of persons to whom licences to drive a transport
vehicle are issued, such power cannot include within its scope the
power to make a rule contrary to the provisions of the Act conferring
D the rule-making power. It is a well settled principle of interpretation
of statutes that the conferment of rule-making power by an Act does
not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels ~·

beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent there-
with or repugnant thereto.

E •
On behalf of the Appellants reliance was placed upon the
words "and who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or
obtaining a driving licence" occurring in sub-section (I) of section 7
and upon the words "or is for the time being disqualified for holding
or obtaining a driving licence" occurring in sub-section (8) of section
F 7. On the basis of these words it was submitted that the disqualifica-
tion for holding or obtaining a driving licence would include not only
disqualifications laid down in the Act but also a disqualification
prescribed by a rule made by virtue of the power conferred by clause
(aa) of section 21 (2). We a" unable to accept this submission.
Sections 15 to 17 of the Act prescribe the cases in which a person
G can be disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. Section
18(1) provides that a person in respect of whom any disquaiification
order is made shall be debarred to the extent and for the period
specified in such order from holding or obtaining a driving licence
and the driving licence, if any, held by such person at the date of the
H order shall case to be effective to such extent and during such period.
The words in sub-sections ( l) and (8) of section 7 relied upon by the
Appellants, therefore, refer to .a disqualification for ho•ding or
obtaining a driving licence incurred under sections 15 to 17 of the
kARNATAKA v. H.G. KAMATH (Madon, J.) 615
Act and not to any disqualification provided for in the rules. Had
the intention of the Legis1ature been to provide also for a disqualifica- · A
...,.__~ tion prescribed by the rules, sub-sections (I) and (8) of section 7
would have been suitably amended when clause (aa) was substituted
for the o'd clause (aa) in section 21(2) by inserting in the said sub-
sections the words "under this Act or the rules made thereunder" or
by inserting other appropriate words.
B
In our opinion, the Karnatlfa High Court was right in coming
to the conclusion that sub-rule (2) inserted in rule 5 of the Karnataka
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, by the said Notification No. HD 16
TMR 73 dated July 7', 1976 was u/ira vires of the Act.
c
In the result, these appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.
I

S.R. Appeals dismissed.