GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER in this petition is seeking for a Writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-F dated 25-9-2002 issued by R-3 - the commissioner for transport in Karnataka. Petitioner is the owner of new Janatha Motor Driving School, Bangalore. He has rich experience in Motor Driving School business. He says that licence is required to run a driving school. He has referred to various provisions in this regard. According to him, an Instructor is required to be in the establishment, as his presence is always needed for completing the training course. Petitioner approached for licence to the jurisdictional Licencing Authority with regard to appointment of qualified Instructor either part time or fuli time. The Licencing authority of Bangalore Central and the Licencing Authority of jayanagar, gave endorsements dated 19-10-2002 and 4-11-2002 stating that no such appointments could be made in terms of the rule. Aggrieved by the said endorsements, petitioner approached the third respondents. The third respondent has stated that there is no bar of engaging part time Instructor. The endorsements issued by the licencing authorities are filed at Annexures-D and E and the endorsement issued by third respondent is filed at Annexure-F. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused thematerial on record. ( 3 ) MOTOR Vehicles Act provides for a licence in the matter ofdriving school. Licence is required to be obtained in terms of the rule 24 (3) (iii) of the CMV Rules. In the light of requirement of licence, petitioner approached the respondent by way of a clarification application. The RTA, Bangalore South, has ruled that no such appointments could be made as the Rules do not provide for the same. Again respondents have issued another endorsement in which it is stated that an Instructor is necessary to run the vehicle. Again in Annexure-F, the same respondent has stated that there is no prohibition for part time Instructor. Let me see as to whether these endorsements are in order. ( 4 ) A Motor Driving school provides for training to the aspirantsaspiring to drive a motor vehicle in terms of the Act. Rule 24 provides for imparting instruction in the matter. Rule 31 provides for physical and theoretical training for different classes. Though there is no prohibition with regard to a part time Instructor, in my view that cannot be taken advantage of in this case. Rule 24 provides for imparting instruction in the matter. Rule 31 provides for physical and theoretical training for different classes. Though there is no prohibition with regard to a part time Instructor, in my view that cannot be taken advantage of in this case. In these days of ever increase of accidents the Courts have to interpret the rule in a reasonable manner so as to achieve the object of providing safety and security to the public by these reckless drivers. Therefore i am of the view that endorsement Annexure-F requires intervention in the larger interest of better road discipline in these days of overcrowded vehicles on the streets. Therefore, accepting the submission of Mr. Hegde, I deem it proper to set aside Annexure-F and I further deem it proper to declare that for the purpose of training a full time instructor is necessary and he alone can impart better training in terms of the object of the Rule. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. Annexure-F is set aside. A declaration is issued declaring that the Instructors for imparting training have to be on full time basis in terms of the rules. Ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .