JUDGMENT The short question which has arisen for determination of this Court in the present Writ Application is whether under Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, a Motor Training School or establishment already operating under a licence can be permitted extension of such establishment in a separate premises. 2. The petitioner which is a Motor Training School having a valid licence Issued by the Licensing Authority, Calcutta, which has bet n renewed upto June 1999, admittedly situates at premises No. 50, Prince Rahimuddin Lane, Calcutta-700 033. The petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of the said Motor Training School. 3. On 7th December, 1994, the petitioners applied before the Licensing Authority praying for extending the library and traffic room of the said school in another premises being 8/1B, Chakraberia Road (South). Calcutta-700 025, as according to the petitioner the existing premises of the said school is not sufficient to afford better library facilities including traffic room accommodation with different parking signals and route safety devices for the learners of motor driving. It is alleged that on the basis of the said application, inspection of the aforesaid premises was duly made by the Licensing Authority on January 1995 and allegedly he was satisfied about the suit ability of the said premises, but subsequently no step was taken to give the requisite permission and to make the necessary endorsement on the licence permitting extension of such school in the aforesaid new premises. The petitioner accordingly moved this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution being C. O. No. 13483(W) of 1995 in the Appellate Side Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court whereupon Satyabrata Sinha, J. by an order dated 11th August, 1995, was pleased to dispose of the Writ Application by directing the Licensing Authority to consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner as early as possible. As the Licensing Authority was not disposing the application in respect of such order, the petitioner had moved an application for contempt. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 12th December. 1995, such prayer of the petitioner bas been rejected by the Licensing Authority on the ground that under the present relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder such permission cannot be granted. 4. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 12th December. 1995, such prayer of the petitioner bas been rejected by the Licensing Authority on the ground that under the present relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder such permission cannot be granted. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that no provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules prohibits extension of such Motor Training School or establishment in a different premises and accordingly the Licensing Authority could not have refused such permission of the petitioners legally. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that in at least 3 other cases the Licensing Authority has granted such permission namely extension of such school in a different premises and accordingly the action of the Licensing Authority to refuse such permission to the petitioners is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. 5. The contention of the respondents on the other hand is that Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules will indicate that the aforesaid provision contemplate the establishment for running of such a school in one premises and therefore to permit extension of the school in different premises will be in contravention of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and Rules. It has also been contended that to permit such extension will amount to permit such an applicant to run another Motor Training School in a different premises without licence. 6. As to the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is being discriminated against inasmuch as in case of other Motor Training Schools such permission has been granted, while such fact has not been denied and it appears from the records produced by the respondents under the order of the Court that such permission for extension was granted in case of at least 3 other Motor Training Schools, namely, Bengal Motor Training and Engineering School. Calcutta Motor Training School and Jodhpur Motor Training School, it has been submitted that such permission on previous occasion was granted by the previous Licensing Officer against the provision of the Act and the Rules and such illegality cannot be permitted to be continued. 7. Section 12(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Calcutta Motor Training School and Jodhpur Motor Training School, it has been submitted that such permission on previous occasion was granted by the previous Licensing Officer against the provision of the Act and the Rules and such illegality cannot be permitted to be continued. 7. Section 12(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 which deals with Licensing and Regulation of Schools or establishments for imparting, instruction in driving of Motor Vehicles inter alia, provides that the Central Government may make rules for the purpose of Licensing and Regulating by the State Governments Schools or establishments by wherever name called for imparting instruction In driving a Motor Vehicle and matter connected therewith. Clauses (a) to (p) of subsection (2) of Section 12 enumerates the matters which may be provided for by the Rules to be framed by the Central Government under Section 12 of the said Act. The opening words of sub• section (2) however indicates that the list of such matters are not exhaustive illustrative as it has been provided in said sub-section (2) that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the fore being power such rules to be framed under sub-section (1) of sub-section (12) may provide for or any of the following matters. 8. Such rules framed by the Central Government under sub section (2) (g) of Section 12 provide for the condition subject to which a person may establish and maintain any such school or establishment for imparting instruction In driving of Motor Vehicles; under Clause (h) of the said sub-section such rule may provide for the nature of syllabus and duration of course or courses for efficient instruction in driving any Motor Vehicles; under Clause (i) of the said sub-section of Section 12 such rules may provide for apparatus and equipments including Motor Vehicles fitted with dual control required for the purpose of imparting such instruction and under Clause (j) of the said sub-section of Section 12 such rules may provide for suitability of the premises on which such schools or establishments may be established and maintained and the facilities to provided therein. 9. Under the aforesaid provisions of Section 12 of the Act the Central Government has framed rules for regulating and Licensing of Motor Driving Schools and establishments and the same is dealt with under Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 9. Under the aforesaid provisions of Section 12 of the Act the Central Government has framed rules for regulating and Licensing of Motor Driving Schools and establishments and the same is dealt with under Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides as follows:- "(1) No person shall establish or maintain any Driving School or establishment for imparting instructions for hire or reward is d riving motor vehicles without a licence in Form 11 granted by the Licensing Authority." Sub-rule 3(3) of Rule 24 of the said Rule, 1989 provides as follows:- "3(3) The Licensing Authority shall while considering an application for the grant or renewal of licence under these Rules have regard to the following matters, namely:- (i) The applicant and the staff working under him are of good moral character and are qualified to give driving instructions; (ii) The premises where the school or establishment is proposed to be conducted is either owned by the applicant or is taken on lease by him or is hired in his name and it has adequate provision for (conducting lectures and demonstration of models) besides adequate parking area for the vehicles meant to be used for imparting instruction in driving; Provided that in respect of schools or establishments imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles or matter concerned therewith immediately before the commencement of these Rules, the Licensing Authority may permit the conducting of instruction facilities in the same premises where the schools or establishments housed for a period of six months, notwithstanding the fact that the premises do not satisfy the conditions laid down in this clause; (iii) The financial resource of the proposed school or establishments are sufficient to provide for its continued maintenance; (iv) The applicant owns and maintains a minimum of one motor vehicle each of the type in which instruction is imported in the school or establishment; (v) The vehicles are available exclusively for purposes of imparting instruction and all such vehicles, except motor cycles, are fitted with dual control facilities to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle; (vi) The applicants maintain the following apparatus, equipments and other requirements, namely:- "A collection of books on Automobiles Mechanism, Driving, Road Safety, Traffic Regulation laws relating to Motor Vehicles and related subjects." 10. An examination of the above mentioned rule will indicate that while considering an application for grant or renewal of licence for a Motor Training School or establishment the Licensing Authority, interalia, is required to take into consideration whether in the premises where the school or establishment is proposed to be conducted there is adequate provision for conducting lecture and demonstration of models besides adequate operating, parking area for the Motor Vehicles used for imparting instruction in driving and the applicants maintain, inter alia, collection of books on Automobiles Mechanism, driving, road safety, traffic 'regulation laws relating to Motor Vehicles and related matters. 11. An applicant for the purpose of obtaining a licence for running a Motor Training School or establishment, must therefore be in possession of a premises either of his own or by way of lease having adequate space for conducting lecture and demonstration of models and for maintenance of library for books of Automobiles Mechanism, driving, road safety, traffic regulation laws relating to Motor Vehicles and related subjects. Consequently an applicant cannot have licence for running such Motor Training School unless there is adequate space in the concerned premises for housing such a library and holding of lecture and demonstration of models, the requirement of making provision in the impugned premises for holding such lecture and demonstration and maintenance of such libraries being a must. The aforesaid provisions were made by the Rule making Authorities obviously for ensuring that a person who wants to obtain a driving licence for driving a Motor Vehicles of any kind on public road is adequately trained not only in the matter of driving a vehicle but also relating to all Rules and Regulations and the basic mechanism of the Motor Vehicles for ensuring safety of the driver as also other users of such public road. 12. Under such circumstances it is Inconceivable that an applicant who already has been granted such a licence presumably having sufficient space for all such facilities latter on would have to apply for extension of school in a different premises for housing of a library. 13. 12. Under such circumstances it is Inconceivable that an applicant who already has been granted such a licence presumably having sufficient space for all such facilities latter on would have to apply for extension of school in a different premises for housing of a library. 13. It is not therefore understood as to how the petitioner could have obtained the licence for running a M of or Vehicles School at the first instance on 18th May, 1990 after coming into operation of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when it is the case of the petitioner that the premises in question is not sufficient to afford better library facilities including traffic room accommodation with different working signals and road safety devices for the learners of motor driving. 14. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Mandal the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 24 of the said Rules not having prohibited specifically the holding of the Motor Training School in more than one premises the Licensing Authority cannot refuse the prayer for extension of school in a different premises for enabling the petitioner to make better library facilities for the learners. 15. The provisions of Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 24 of the said Motor Vehicles Rule although not restrictive in nature but the same are regulatory and the whole purpose of the said provision of the Act and the Rules are to regulate the running of Motor Training School for the purpose of preventing mushrooming of Motor Training School or establishment which are not properly equipped for imparting proper training to a learner who intends to drive a Motor Vehicle after obtaining licence. 16. The scheme of the aforesaid Act and the Rules and specially the provisions of making adequate provision in a school for holding a lecture and demonstration for models to the learners and maintenance of apparatus, equipments and libraries containing books on automobiles, driving, road safety, traffic regulation laws, relating to Motor Vehicles and related matters clearly indicate that the premises of Motor Training School must have sufficient space to house all such facilities; otherwise no licence can be granted. Such provision in my view, impliedly prohibits the maintenance of the necessary requirement for holding a Motor Training School partly in one premises and partly in another. 17. That apart to permit such extension may frustrate the very purpose of such rules, namely, ensuring that the Motor Training Schools are properly equipped for the purpose of imparting training for driving Motor Vehicles to the learners, inasmuch as if all such facilities are not housed in one premises but are split up in different premises, the same may hamper the process of imparting proper training to the learners. 18. Under such circumstances I am of the view, the Licensing Authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for extension of school in a different premises for the purpose of housing the library and equipment. 19. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the second premises in respect of which such extension is sought for is contiguous or adjacent to the original one or very near to the original premises so that there will be no difficulty for the learners for getting proper training for the school concern in all aspects of the matter and imparting of such training will not be adversely affected for distance of the new premises from the old one. On the contrary it appears from the address of the proposed premises the same is at quite a distance from the old premises. 20. The fact that the previous Licensing Authority has permitted such extension on earlier occasion cannot create any right in favour of the present petitioner also to have such extension. 21. As it has been held hereinabove that an applicant for such a, training school must be in possession of a premises having sufficient space for making adequate provisions and for such facilities and therefore cannot have extension of a school in different premises subsequently after obtaining a licence on the ground that the premises in question did not have sufficient space to house such facilities. The permission which was granted by the previous Licensing Authority in case of other Motor Training School clearly was against the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act and the aforesaid provision of the Motor Vehicles Rules and were illegal. One illegality cannot justify another and the question of discriminatory treatment therefore does not arise. 22. The permission which was granted by the previous Licensing Authority in case of other Motor Training School clearly was against the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act and the aforesaid provision of the Motor Vehicles Rules and were illegal. One illegality cannot justify another and the question of discriminatory treatment therefore does not arise. 22. It is also not to be overlooked that to permit such extension of the school in a different premises is really permitting an applicant to hold another Motor Training School in a different premises without obtaining a fresh licence which is wholly impermissible. In the result the writ application fails and the same is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.