## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN**
**MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/13TH SRAVANA, 1936**
**WP(C).No. 9011 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------**
**PETITIONER:**
**--------------------------**
**SARAN RAJENDRAN S/O. C.M. RAJENDRAN RESIDING AT CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA.P.O. THRISSUR-680682.**
**BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON**
**RESPONDENT(S):**
**----------------------------**
**1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680664.**
**2. THE ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680664.**
**R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI R RANJITH**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**kkj**
**WP(C).No. 9011 of 2014 (B)**
**---------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**
**-------------------------**
**P1. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27-9-2013.**
**P2. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. K.P. JAYAKUMAR, CONSULTANT IN ORTHOPEDICS (CIVILS SURGEON), KERALA HEALTH SERVICE DATED 10-8-2013.**
## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**
**--------------------------------**
## **NIL**
**// TRUE COPY //**
**PA TO JUDGE**
**K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. --------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.9011 of 2014-B ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2014**
## **J U D G M E N T**
The petitioner had applied for the issue of a learner's licence to the first respondent to drive non-transport two wheelers as well as four wheelers. The petitioner has, according to him, a mild infirmity on his right hand, which according to him does not cause any obstruction or disadvantage in driving a two wheeler or four wheeler. He had produced a Medical Certificate from a qualified Government Specialist Doctor certifying that he was fit to drive the vehicles. However, the petitioner complains that his application has been marked only for the issue of a learner's licence to drive an invalid carriage. According to Advocate T.C.Suresh Menon who appears for the petitioner, the first respondent ought to have considered the Medical certificate as well as other documents produced along with his application and issued the learner's licence sought for.
## -:2:-
## W.P.(C) No.9011 of 2014-B
Particular reliance is placed on Exhibit P2 Medical Certificate to point out that the Doctor has opined that even with the mild disability of his right hand, the petitioner would be able to drive two wheelers and four wheelers, with sufficient training. It is also alleged that the petitioner has already been directed to get himself certified to be fit by a Medical Board, a procedure not contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), according to the counsel. The petitioner has therefore sought for the issue of appropriate directions to consider his application and to issue a learner's licence to him.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. According to the statement, Section 8(4) of the Act confers sufficient discretion on the authority to determine whether an applicant was suffering from any physical disability that was likely to cause danger to the public or passengers. In exercise of the said power, on
## -:3:-
## W.P.(C) No.9011 of 2014-B
examining the documents produced by the petitioner, it was concluded that the applicant was suffering from a physical deformity of his right hand. Therefore, he was directed to obtain a Medical Certificate from a Medical Board. The contention of the petitioner that, the physical disability suffered by him would not cause any hindrance or obstruction to his driving a two wheeler or four wheeler is not correct.
4. Heard.
5. Sub section 3 and 4 of Section 8 reads as follows:-
(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government and signed by such registered medical practitioner, as the State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint for this purpose:
[Provided that no such medical certificate is required for licence to drive a vehicle other than a transport vehicle.]
(4) If, from the application or from the medical certificate referred to in sub section (3), it appears that the applicant is suffering from any disease or disability which is likely to cause the driving by him of a motor vehicle of the class
## -:4:-
## W.P.(C) No.9011 of 2014-B
which he would be authorised by the learner's licence applied for to drive to be a source of danger to the public or to the passengers, the licensing authority shall refuse to issue the learner's licence .
Provided that a learner's licence limited to driving an invalid carriage may be issued to the applicant, if the licensing authority is satisfied that he is fit to drive such a carriage.
As per the above provision, every application for a learner's licence has to be accompanied by a Medical Certificate in the prescribed form by a person authorised to issue the same. Sub section 4 further stipulates that, where it appears that the applicant is suffering from any disease or disability which is likely to cause the driving by him of a motor vehicle of the class which he would be authorised by the learner's licence applied for to drive, to be a source of danger to the public or to the passengers, the licencing authority shall refuse to issue the learner's licence. For the purpose, the conclusion has to be arrived at by examining the application and the Medical Certificate that accompanies the same. The proviso however confers power
-:5:-
## W.P.(C) No.9011 of 2014-B
on the licencing authority to issue a learner's licence limited to driving an invalid carriage.
6. According to the statement filed, it was in exercise of the above power that in Exhibit P1 an endorsement has been made limiting the learner's licence to an invalid carriage only. It is further stated on behalf of the first respondent that, even from his physical appearance, the licencing authority was of the opinion that he was suffering from a physical deformity of his right hand. Since the provision has conferred power on the authority to decide the issue as to whether the applicant was suffering from a physical deformity that would obstruct his driving a motor vehicle without causing danger to the public or to the passengers, I do not find anything wrong in the authority having decided in the said manner. The contention that the authority should have proceeded in the matter solely relying on the Medical Certificate that was produced, cannot therefore be accepted. It is also worth noticing that, a
## -:6:-
## W.P.(C) No.9011 of 2014-B
similar issue had come up for the consideration of this Court in **Gajendran v. R.T.O. Wayanad** [2006 (3) KLT 1006]. A learned Judge of this Court has considered the issue and made the following conclusion in paragraph 5 of the judgment.
5. The paramount legislative intent in providing the licensing authority with such power, as is provided under sub-s.4 of S.8, is to ensure that driving a motor vehicle under the authorisation of a learner's licence shall not be a source of danger to the public or to the passengers. This is the purpose for which the licensing authority is directed that it shall refuse to issue learner's licence in a case where the applicant is suffering from any disease or disability, which is likely to cause the driving by him, to be a source of danger to the public or to the passengers.
7. **Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.** has gone on to observe further in paragraph 6 of the said judgment as follows.
The paramount consideration of S.8(4) of the Act being as noticed in the preceding paragraph, it has to be left to the wisdom of the licensing authority to decide as to whether a person is disentitled from having a learner's licence and
## -:7:-
## W.P.(C) No.9011 of 2014-B
the licensing authority is expected to be well-versed with the manner in which vehicles are to be driven. He is the authority empowered as per the Statute to grant the licence. Obviously, therefore, the medical certificate, in terms of S.8(3), has to be considered by the licensing authority and an appropriate decision taken. In this view of the matter, the medical certificate referred to in sub-s.3 of S.8 is not to be treated as the sole material on which the licensing authority should confine to, for the purpose of discharging his duties and responsibilities referable to sub-s.4 of S.8.
In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned action, justifying an interference with the same. This writ petition is for the above reasons dismissed.
**Sd/-**
**K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE**
kkj
