Rajasthan High Court: In a writ Petition challenging the rejection of the application for transfer of Motor Driving School license, a single-judge bench of Rekha Borana, J., while balancing legal and equitable principles, set aside the blind rejection of the License transfer application. The Court affirmed that “when no positive law is discernible, Courts turn to equity as a source of applicable law” and directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application for license transfer.
In the instant matter, the petitioner’s late husband was granted a license to run a motor driving school and the same was valid until 2027. Upon his death in June 2023, the petitioner sought to transfer the license in her name. Her application was rejected on the grounds that neither the , nor the Motor Driving School Registration Scheme, 2018, provided for such a transfer. After there was no response to her initial application, the petitioner filed a writ petition, resulting in an order for the respondent to consider her application. However, the respondent again rejected her application, prompting the present writ petition. The main issue in the case in hand is —
Whether the rejection of the application for transfer of the motor driving school license was justified in the absence of a provision for such a transfer?
Whether the Court could grant equitable relief in the absence of a statutory provision for license transfer upon the death of a licensee?
The petitioner contended that although no express provision exists for the transfer of the license, there is also no provision for its automatic cancellation upon the licensee’s death. It was argued that as a qualified legal heir, she should be allowed to take over the license, and equitable principles should guide the Court’s decision. The petitioner cited V. Krishnasamy v. Licensing Authority-cum-Regional Transport Officer, Writ Petition No.29797 of 2008, decided on 20-01-2009, where the Madras High Court held that when a legal heir fulfills the necessary qualifications, the licensing authority should consider license transmission. The petitioner also referred to a circular issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh that allows for license transfers to successors. However, the Additional Advocate General representing the State contended that the Motor Driving School Registration Scheme, 2018 did not provide for license transfer and that the petitioner should reapply for a license under the amended rules.
The Court referred to Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, , where the Supreme Court held that “the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not.”, M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, , where it was held that “Courts in India have long availed of the principles of justice, good conscience and equity to supplement the incompleteness or inapplicability of the letter of the law with the ground realities of legal disputes to do justice between the parties.” and SS. Bola v. B.D. Sardana, , where it was held that “equity steps to where law has left yawning gap.” The Court also referred to V. Krishnaswamy (Supra), wherein in a similar situation, the High Court directed the State authorities to decide the application of the legal representative since the same could not have been rejected just because there existed no provision for transfer of the license in the favor of the legal representative of the license holder. The Court further noted that the State of Uttar Pradesh had also issued a Circular wherein a specific provision for transfer of license in favor of one of the successors/legal representatives on death of licensee has been provided.
The Court highlighted that neither the nor Motor Driving School Registration Scheme, 2018 provided for automatic cancellation of the license on the licensee’s death, therefore, the licensing authority’s approach deems inequitable. The Court emphasised on the importance of balancing equities and ensuring justice, relying on principles of justice, good conscience, and equity in the absence of specific statutory provisions.
The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner’s application solely based on the absence of a transfer provision is unjustified and impressible. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application for license transfer. The Court asserted that if the petitioner is found qualified under Rule 24 of the , the license should be transferred to her and if not, the authorities could act in accordance with the law. The Court also urged the State of Rajasthan to consider introducing provisions for the transfer of licenses to legal heirs in the interest of public welfare.
[Bhanwri v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3789/2024, Decided on 07-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Vivek Firoda, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with Mr. Rajendra Singh, Counsel for the Respondents
The post appeared first on .