Delegated legislation cannot add inconsistent driving licence qualifications beyond the parent Motor Vehicles Act.

Rule 5(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, was examined against the licensing scheme in section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Act required age, fitness and competence for a driving licence, and treated success in the prescribed test for the vehicle type sought as sufficient. By adding a prior two-year medium motor vehicle experience requirement for heavy motor vehicle authorisation, the rule imposed a condition inconsistent with the parent Act. The rule-making power to prescribe minimum qualifications could not be used to create a repugnant additional disqualification. Rule 5(2) was therefore ultra vires.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 5(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, requiring two years' experience in driving a medium motor vehicle as a condition for obtaining authorization to drive a heavy motor vehicle, was validly made under section 21(2)(aa) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, or was ultra vires for being repugnant to section 7 of the Act.

Analysis: The scheme of section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, makes the grant of a driving licence dependent upon satisfaction of the statutory age, fitness, and competence requirements, and section 7(7) contemplates that competence is to be tested in the vehicle type for which the licence is sought. Under section 7(8), once those statutory requirements are met, the applicant is entitled to the licence unless disqualified under the Act. Rule 5(2), by insisting on prior experience in driving a medium motor vehicle before a heavy motor vehicle authorization could be granted, added a further condition that was not merely supplementary but inconsistent with the statutory scheme, because the Act itself treats passing the prescribed test for a heavy motor vehicle as sufficient. The power under section 21(2)(aa) to prescribe minimum qualifications could not be used to create a qualification that contradicted the parent Act. The words in section 7 referring to disqualification for holding or obtaining a driving licence were held to relate to statutory disqualifications under the Act and not to disqualifications introduced by rules.

Conclusion: Rule 5(2) was ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The statutory licensing scheme prevailed over the impugned rule, and the appeals consequently failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegated legislation cannot impose a qualification or disqualification that is inconsistent with, or repugnant to, the parent Act, even where the rule-making power authorises prescription of minimum qualifications.

---