( 1 ) THE Question involved in this petition is simple: but it is frequently arising in every day affairs before the Regional Transport Officer (The rto) of the State. ( 2 ) THE question is whether an application for learner's driving licence should be affixed with a process fee of Re. 1? The RTO, South Kanara, before whom the petitioner made an application for learner's driving licence, has stated that the petitioner should pay the said process fee. The rto made an endorsement to that effect, returning the application of the petitioner. Instead of paving Re. t for the court fee stamp, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition under Art. 226, by paving the Court fee of rs. 25. besides spending the necessary amounts for other purposes. One must really appreciate the action taken by the petitioner. ( 3 ) RULE 19 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 ('the Rules'), movides for filing an application for the grant of learner's driving licence. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 provide: (2) A separate application for a learner's driving licence for each type of a motor vehicle shall be made to the licencing authority having furisdiction in the area in which the applicant ordinarily resides, in form No. 5 L. Lr. A. and shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 2 (two rupees ). The petitioner has paid a fee of Rs. 2 on his application. The RTO has stated in his endorsement dated 1-9-1971, thus : under Rule 3 (s) of MMV Rules every application addressed to the Regional Transport Officer or any other Authority not specified in the said rules shall be affixed with a court fee stamp of Re. 1. The above application is not affixed with any Court Fee Stamp as required under the said Rules Therefore, the application is returned herewith for re-submission along with Court Fee Stamp of Rupee one only. Sd/ (Illegible) sr. Regional Transport Officer, South Kanara, Mangalore. 1-9-1971. ( 4 ) THE RTO has relied upon Rule 3 (s) of the Rules. Rule 3 is a rule defining certain words and expressions used in the Rules. The expression prescribed process fee is defined under Rule 3 (s ). Sd/ (Illegible) sr. Regional Transport Officer, South Kanara, Mangalore. 1-9-1971. ( 4 ) THE RTO has relied upon Rule 3 (s) of the Rules. Rule 3 is a rule defining certain words and expressions used in the Rules. The expression prescribed process fee is defined under Rule 3 (s ). It reads thus: (a) Prescribed procese fee means the fee payable in the form of court Fee Stamps in respect of appeals (or petition) filed before the authorities specified below at the rates noted against them : (i) The Regional Transport Authority 1-00 (ii) The State Transport Authority 1-50 the rest of the authorities mentioned at (iii) to (vii) is omitted as unnecessary. ( 5 ) SRI Tukaram S. Pai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended in my oipnion very rightly, that the RTO has no jurisdiction to demand the 'prescribed process fee on an application for the grant of a learner's driving licence. The definition at the expression 'prescribed process fee could be relied upon only when, any relevant rule provides for the payment of the 'prescribed process fee'. The prescribed process fee are those provided under Rule 3 (s) unless the context otherwise requires in the rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 does not specify that the application for learner's driving licence shall be accompanied by the 'prescribed process fee'. Therefore, the RTO has no jurisdiction to insist on the payment of process fee of Re. 1 on the application made by the petitioner. ( 6 ) SRI B. B. Mandappa,learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents, however, submitted that the petitioner should pay 50 paise court fee stamp under the Mysore Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 on his application. He relied upon clause (k) of Art. 10. Sch. II of the said act which reads as follows : (k) Application or petition not falling under clause (i) or (j) and presented to a public officer or in a public office and not otherwise provided for (i) which involves the exercise or non-exercise of power conferred by law or rule having the force of law; Fifty naye paise (ii) in other cases Twenty naye paise. ( 7 ) THERE is no doubt about the applicability of clause (k) of Art. 10 of Sch. ( 7 ) THERE is no doubt about the applicability of clause (k) of Art. 10 of Sch. II of the Court Fees Act to an application made for obtaining learner's driving licence, because the RTO is a public officer who is required to exercise the power conferred by the Rules for the grant of a learner's driving licence. ( 8 ) IN the result, I allow this petition and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent 2, RTO, to entertain the application of the petitioner for the grant of a learner's driving licence and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in this order. ( 9 ) THE petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 50. 00. --- *** --- .