Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. This Original Petition is filed by the All Kerala Motor Driving School Workers Welfare Association and one Sajith Kumar, Janatha Motor Driving School, who is also the Secretary of the first petitioner Association. The first petitioner is a registered Association and it is registered under the Travancore-Cocnin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. The Original Petition has been filed to quash Exts. P1 to P3, P5 and P6 Circulars issued by the Transport Commissioner and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the powers originally vested with the licensing authorities and for other reliefs. 2. The first petitioner is an Association of Motor Driving School Workers, while the second petitioner is the owner of a Motor Driving School. The Motor Driving Schools are recognised under the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". These schools have to work according to the conditions stipulated in the Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, hereinafter referred to as "the Central Rules". The petitioner contended that the respondents are of the view that the motor driving schools were responsible for gelling licence for inexperienced drivers, who involve the vehicles they drive in accidents. With the above view in mind, certain circulars have been issued by the Transport Commissioner. These Circulars, which arc produced as Exts. P1 to P3, P5 and P6 are issued by the Transport Commissioner and contain instructions/ guidelines to the licensing authorities. These guidelines are attacked on the ground that they are without jurisdiction and that they are issued in disrespect of the motor driving schools. The first Circular is dated 2.6.1998. Under this, the number of testing grounds in each district and their localities will be notified by the Transport Commissioner from time to lime. All the tests will commence at 8.30 am. Ext. P2 is a notification dated 9.7.1998 by which the places for testing are notified. Ext. P3 is a Circular dated 25.7.1998. Sub-clause (1) to (17) of the same deal with the details of the tests for licensing. It says that there are two parts for examination. If the candidate passes in Part I and fails in Part II, he will be required to appear for both the parts in the next time. Ext. P5 is regarding the conduct of the test for learner's licence. Ext. It says that there are two parts for examination. If the candidate passes in Part I and fails in Part II, he will be required to appear for both the parts in the next time. Ext. P5 is regarding the conduct of the test for learner's licence. Ext. P6 is a letter from K.J. Joseph, I.P.S. to all Regional Transport Officers. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a "motor vehicle" being a subject coming within the First List in Schedule III of the Constitution, only the Central Government can deal with anything regarding the conduct for obtaining driving licence as well as conditions for obtaining the same. The Commissioner by himself cannot issue any circular which will alter the Rules issued by the Central Government under the Central Rules. So far as the second respondent is concerned, he is not given any power to supplement under the Act or the Rules. The main grievance of the counsel for the petitioners is that the importance of the training schools of motor vehicles are reduced. The main attack against these Circulars is thai it is on the satisfaction of the licensing authority that the licenceis to be issued. Usually it is the motor driving schools which sponsor the students. The students will not have any temporary residence in the city and so it is the address of the driving school that is given as the temporary address. But, now that is given a go-by and it is staled that if for temporary address that of a driving school is given, the application will not be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the conditions for granting licence are prescribed by the Central Government and State Government can act only in accordance with that. The State Government cannot act against the Rules and Regulations of the Central Government. Wlienlliis matter came before this Court earlier in O.P. Nos. 15245/1998 & 15379/1998, Radhakrishnan, J. disposed of the Original Petitions directing the Transport Commissioner to consider the grievance of the petitioners regarding the limited number of testing centres. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed in this case. Wlienlliis matter came before this Court earlier in O.P. Nos. 15245/1998 & 15379/1998, Radhakrishnan, J. disposed of the Original Petitions directing the Transport Commissioner to consider the grievance of the petitioners regarding the limited number of testing centres. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed in this case. In the counter affidavit, the State submitted that the Commissioner derives power to issue the Circulars under S.213 of the Act and that the Circulars are intended to see that no corruption take place in the issue of motor driving licence, which will in turn have an effect on reducing the motor accidents. They further contended that the Circulars are valid. 5. The question before me is whether the Circulars Exts. P1 to P3, P5 and P6 are valid? Before I consider the validity of the Circulars, let us see the relevant Sections regarding the granting of licence for driving the motor vehicles and also the conditions imposed upon it. Chapter II of the Act deals with licensing of Drivers of motor vehicles. S.3 states the necessity for driving licence. S.4 deals with age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles. S.8 deals with grant of learner's licence and S.9 deals with grant of driving licence. For the grantof learner's licence, an application has to be made to the licensing authority. The applicant can apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area (i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or (ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in S.12 from where he intends to receive instruction in driving a vehicle is situate for the issue of the learner's licence. The application has to be accompanied by such documents as prescribed by the Central Government. Sub-clause (5) of S.8 says that no learner's licence shall be issued to any applicant unless he passes to the satisfaction of the licensing authority such lest as may be prescribed by the Central Government. S.9, regarding grant of driving licence, almost the similar provisions appear regarding the licensing authority to which the application shall be made. It also gives jurisdiction to the licensing authority within the limits of the establishment of the driving schools. Under Clause (4) of S.9, the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government are to be acquired by the person who wants the licence. It also gives jurisdiction to the licensing authority within the limits of the establishment of the driving schools. Under Clause (4) of S.9, the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government are to be acquired by the person who wants the licence. S.12 deals with licensing and regulation of schools or establishments for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles. 6. Now we turn to Central Rules. Chapter II deals with licensing of Drivers. R.4 states that the applicant has to produce evidence as to the correct address and age. Under R.11, preliminary tests are prescribed for learner's licence. R.14 on wards deals with driving licence. R.15 deals with driving test. It prescribes the different tests which should be made in order to find whether a person is suitable. 7. S.27 of the Act gives power for the Central Government to make rules. It is under that power the Rules mentioned above are made. 8. S.28 of the Act enables the State Government to make rules. S.28 enables the framing of rules for appointment, jurisdiction, control and functions of licensing authorities and other prescribed authorities. The State Government has framed rules, named as "Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules" hereinafter referred to as "the Kerala Rules". R.405 of the Kerala Rules is important. It enumerates the officers for the purpose of S.213 of the Act. The said Rules says that the officers who may be appointed for the purpose of the said section shall exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to them under the Act and the Rules and the notification issued thereunder. They shall carry out Hie instructions and orders issued by the Transport Commissioner from time to time. Thus, on a reading of the Act and the Rules, it is clear that the power to issue conditions and qualification for getting learner's licence and driving licence are on the Central Government. By the provisions in the Act and the Central Rules, the Government of India have prescribed the qualifications and also prescribed the necessary forms for applying and necessary forms of the licence. So far as the State Government is concerned, its duty is only to implement the regulations regardi ng licence and conduct necessary tests for issuing the licence and grant licence to the applicant. The licensing authorities are created under the Kerala Rules. So far as the State Government is concerned, its duty is only to implement the regulations regardi ng licence and conduct necessary tests for issuing the licence and grant licence to the applicant. The licensing authorities are created under the Kerala Rules. As per R.4, the Regional Transport Officer of a region shall be the licensing authority of that region. The Joint Regional Transport Officer shall be the additional licensing authority of that region, Where there is a Sub Regional Office, the Joint Regional Transport Officer attached 'to thatoffice shall be the Additional licensing authority within the jurisdiction. It appears that prior to issue of these circulars, the Regional Transport Officers and the Joint Regional Transport Officers were conducting the tests and issuing licences. Because of certain complaints regarding the conduct of the tests, the Commissioner of the Transport Department has issued these circulars, which are produced as Exts. P1 to P3, P5 and P6. 9. The first contention of the original petitioners is that it is only the licensing authority which is entitled to prescribe regulations for thepurposeof applying for licence and with regard to the testing of the drivers, etc. and that the Commissioner has no power. I cannot accept this argument. Under S.28 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to make necessary rules for the appointment, jurisdiction, control and functions of the licensing authority and other prescribed authorities. Similarly under R.405 of the Kerala Rules, all the officers including the Regional Transport Officers and the Joint Regional Transport Officers are to be regarded as officers of the Motor Vehicles Department and shall exercise powers and perform duties as per the Act and the Rules. It is further stated that they shall carry out the instructions and orders issued by the Transport Commissioner from time to time. Thus, with regard to the powers of the licensing authorities, the Commissioner is entitled to issue orders in the form of Circulars or notifications in order to guide the licensing authorities. It cannot be said that only the licensing authority can make regulations. The licensing authorities can make regulations subject to trje instructions of the Commissioner. Hence I am of the view that the Circulars issued by the Commissioner are valid in law. 10. The next question is whether any provision in the circular is illegal or opposed to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Regarding Ext. The licensing authorities can make regulations subject to trje instructions of the Commissioner. Hence I am of the view that the Circulars issued by the Commissioner are valid in law. 10. The next question is whether any provision in the circular is illegal or opposed to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Regarding Ext. P1, the main attack is that the tests are being conducted only in district centres. Even in cases where sub-centres are there, driving tests are not being allowed to be conducted there. Learned counsel also invited my attention to Ext. P2, which is the circular issued by the Commissioner where only 14 centres are notified as places for the purpose of testing the licensees. In fact, two Original Petitions, O.P.Nos.15245/1998 and 15379/1998, were filed challenging the above circular. This Court disposed of those Original Petitions by directing the Transport Commissioner to hear the petitioners and redress the grievances. Pursuant to this direction, it seems, some centres were also notified. I am of the view that the restriction of sub-centres is quite not correct. Wherever there are Sub Regional Offices or Additional Regional Office, driving test should be conducted by all those officers. The petitioners have expressed their difficulty in that. If only one centre is located in the district, it will take a long time to complete the tests and the intended licensees have to cover a long distance. Hence, it is contended that this Court should direct the respondents to allow testing in places where Sub Regional Offices are existing. 11. The main contention of the petitioners was that without any basis the training schools are being ignored and they have not been treated properly. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Act itself gives power to an applicant to file an application for licence before the Regional Transport Officer, who is within the jurisdiction of the driving school. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that both the Act and the Central Rules allows to give both permanent and temporary addresses, the circulars in question the address of a driving school will not be treated as a temporary address. In fact, in Ext. P6, it is stated that candidate should be advised to furnish his own temporary address in column4 of the application. In fact, in Ext. P6, it is stated that candidate should be advised to furnish his own temporary address in column4 of the application. The address of the driving school will not be accepted as temporary address. I do not find any basis for such restriction. For applying for licence, it is necessary to give a certificate that the applicant has undergone the training in the school and to prevent the applicant from using the school's address as temporary address is without any basis. The Act itself gives the applicant to apply for licences within the jurisdiction of the driving school. It may be that a person may not have any temporary address in a city. He may be permanently employed in a place outside the city. But when he comes to city for learning driving, he cannot give his permanent address as temporary address. The school imparts training and education. It will be the temporary home of the applicant. If the owners of the schools commit any manipulations, it is for the authorities to take action. But that should not prevent the student who study in the school to give the address of the school as temporary address. 12. The other ground was regarding the conduct of the test prescribed in Ext. P3. In it, it is stated that a candidate who passed in Part I but failed in Part II in a class of vehicle will have to appear in both parts. This clause cannot be said to be offensive because unless the licensing authority is satisfied that the licence holder has got all the qualifications as prescribed in the Rules and is also an expert, licence will not be issued. The licensing authority as well as the Commissioner are enabled to fix guidelines on which basis the satisfaction is to be recorded. In the same way, fixing of 50% marks cannot be said to be against the Act. 13. Thus, on going through Exts. P1 loP3,P5 and P6, clause (5) oi'Ext.P6, which says that the school's address cannot be taken as a temporary address, is struck down. It is made clear that if an application contains the temporary address as that of the school, that application should not be rejected. Similarly, all the licensing authorities should see that testing centres are opened in sub regions as expeditiously as possible. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.