Driving school licence applications require joint inspection, hearing, and a reasoned decision within prescribed timelines.

The petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Officer, Darbhanga, for permission to establish a Motor Vehicle Driving Training School and submitted the prescribed fee and supporting documents, including an Engineer’s character certificate.

Under Clause 5 of the departmental letter dated 03.09.2013, the application was required to be decided within 90 days, and any rejection had to state reasons after providing the applicant an opportunity of hearing.

The application was not decided within that period.

Subsequently, the Joint Commissioner-cum-Secretary directed a joint inspection on 13.04.2018, but the Motor Vehicle Inspector rejected the application by letter dated 08.06.2018 without conducting the directed joint inspection or identifying the specific eligibility deficiency.

The respondents contended that a subsequent enquiry was conducted under Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and that the matter had been forwarded to the District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority, Samastipur, for a final decision.

The petitioner challenged the rejection and sought reconsideration, compensation, and action against the concerned authorities.

1. Whether the petitioner’s application for a licence to establish a Motor Vehicle Driving Training School was dealt with in accordance with Clause 5 of the departmental letter dated 03.09.2013, including the requirements of timely disposal, joint inspection, reasons for rejection, and opportunity of hearing.

2. Whether the respondents could rely upon the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report as a valid final decision when the competent Licensing Authority had not disposed of the application in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation or other consequential relief for the alleged delay and expenses incurred in maintaining the requisite infrastructure.

The Court applied Clause 5 of the departmental letter dated 03.09.2013, which required an application for establishing a Motor Vehicle Driving Training School to be considered and decided within 90 days and mandated that, before rejection, the applicant be informed of the reasons and afforded an opportunity of hearing.

The Court also considered Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, relied upon by the respondents in relation to the enquiry and licensing process.

The governing principle was that an administrative licensing decision must be taken by the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure, upon the relevant inspection and enquiry, with reasons and observance of procedural fairness.

The Court found that the petitioner’s application had not been finally decided within the prescribed 90-day period.

Although the Joint Commissioner-cum-Secretary specifically directed a joint inspection, the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report was prepared without the required joint inspection and did not identify the particular eligibility requirement allegedly not fulfilled by the petitioner.

The subsequent report and forwarding of the file to the District Magistrate did not cure the failure to follow the prescribed procedure, particularly because no final decision had been taken by the competent Licensing Authority.

Accordingly, the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report could not, by itself, constitute a valid decision on the petitioner’s application, and the matter required fresh consideration after proper inspection and hearing.

A reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within eight weeks from receipt or production of the Court’s order.

The Court expressed no opinion on the petitioner’s substantive eligibility for the licence.

The claims for compensation and other consequential reliefs were left open for consideration in accordance with law.