TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court invalidates Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules sub-rule, emphasizing adherence to parent Act.</h1> <h3>State Of Karnataka And Anr Versus H. Ganesh Kamath Etc.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision, declaring sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, as ultra vires ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of sub-rule (2) inserted in rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963.2. Repugnancy between sub-rule (2) of rule 5 and sections 4 and 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.3. Scope of rule-making power conferred by section 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.Summary:1. Validity of sub-rule (2) inserted in rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963:The Karnataka 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). The Supreme Court upheld this decision, concluding that the sub-rule was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.2. Repugnancy between sub-rule (2) of rule 5 and sections 4 and 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:The High Court found that sub-rule (2) of rule 5 was repugnant to sections 4 and 7 of the Act. Section 7(7) specifies that the test of competence to drive should be carried out in a vehicle of the type to which the application refers. The Act does not require experience in driving a medium motor vehicle to obtain a licence for a heavy motor vehicle. However, sub-rule (2) of rule 5 required at least two years of experience in driving a medium motor vehicle, which was contrary to the Act's provisions.3. Scope of rule-making power conferred by section 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:The appellants argued that the State of Karnataka had the power to prescribe additional qualifications for driving licences under section 21(2)(aa) of the Act. However, the Supreme Court held that the rule-making power does not allow the creation of rules that are inconsistent with or repugnant to the parent Act. The Court emphasized that the rule-making authority cannot prescribe qualifications that contradict the Act's provisions.In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the Karnataka High Court's decision, declaring sub-rule (2) of rule 5 ultra vires of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and dismissed the appeals with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
