https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186263 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. en-us Thu, 31 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Sep 2016 11:37:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186263 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186263