9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly if the person concerned qualify the examination within the said period. The applicants for fresh licence are distinct and different class from persons already holding temporary licence under the erstwhile Regulations - Once the rule making authorities have decided to dispense with the practice of granting temporary licence, it is only reasonable that those persons already holding such licences were given chance for renewal of such temporary licences upto a maximum period of two years, without the licences qualifying the requisite examinations as required in the case of persons seeking licence under the new Regulations. Merely because the petitioners were granted with a temporary licence, they cannot seek continuation even after its expir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntemplated under Regulation 8(4) is reckoned, the petitioner need to pass the examination only before 27.3.2010, is the contention. 3. The representative of the petitioner company, Sri. Ajith Kumar V.P. had failed in the examination in which he had appeared during December 2003. But thereafter he had not appeared in the examination scheduled on 14.2.2004. According to the petitioner, the respondents have conducted only two examinations within a period of two years. Therefore the company made Ext. P5 request to extend validity of the licence. When the same was not considered, they have approached this court. In Ext.P6 interim order issued in W.P.(C).No.5487/2006 the respondents were directed to extent validity of Ext.P2 licence, which expi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a discriminate classification among the applicants since it allows only two years period for passing the examination, with respect to holders of temporary licence. Hence it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, is the contention. Further contention is that the Regulation cannot be made applicable to persons who are issued with temporary licence prior to 23.2.2004 which is the date on which 2004 Regulations were introduced. It is contended that there is no distinction or difference among the applicants appearing for the examination, after Ext.P3 Regulation was introduced. Prescription of a cut-off date, as two years after 23.2.2004 for passing the examination is illegal and arbitrary, is the contention. 5. In the counter affida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er commencement of the 2004 Regulations. At the same time, a restriction was imposed through the new Regulations for continuance of the temporary licences already granted. Continuance of such temporary licence will be permitted only if the person concerned qualify the examination within the said period. The applicants for fresh licence are distinct and different class from persons already holding temporary licence under the erstwhile Regulations. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that both these groups are not identical. They are distinct and different. Once the rule making authorities have decided to dispense with the practice of granting temporary licence, it is only reasonable that those persons already holding such licences were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
