Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner driving school had been established in the year, 1994. About 9000 students had learnt driving from the petitioner driving school. The petitioner school has been functioning adhering to all the necessary conditions, as per the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the rules framed thereunder. No adverse remarks had been recorded against the petitioner driving school. 3. The licence, in respect of the petitioner driving school, had been issued in the name of one Suresh Kumar, the brother-in-law of M.Chitra, who is the power of attorney agent of the petitioner driving school. Since, Suresh Kumar had got into service, under the State Government, he had entrusted the administration of the petitioner driving school with M.Chitra. He had also requested the first respondent to furnish him all the necessary particulars regarding the procedure to transfer the licence in favour of M.Chitra. The licence issued to the petitioner driving school is valid till 29.3.2014. However, the first respondent had passed an order revoking the licence of the petitioner driving school. Therefore, M.Chitra had preferred an appeal before the second respondent, as contemplated under Rules 29, 30, and 32 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 4. It has been further stated that due to the revocation of the licence of the petitioner driving school it could not admit new students, from 28.5.2010. The first respondent, while revoking the licence granted in favour of the petitioner driving school, had stated that no application had been filed for the transfer of the licence. 5. It had been further stated that no opportunity of personal hearing had been given to M.Chitra, by the first respondent, before the licence of the petitioner driving school had been revoked. Further, the second respondent had passed the order rejecting the appeal filed by M.Chitra, without considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand. As such, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are contrary to the relevant provisions of law and the principles of natural justice. 6. Further, the second respondent had passed the order rejecting the appeal filed by M.Chitra, without considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand. As such, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are contrary to the relevant provisions of law and the principles of natural justice. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the licence issued in the name of Arjuna Driving School, the petitioner herein, had been revoked by the first respondent, as Suresh Kumar, in whose name the licence had been issued, had joined government service. Therefore, the first respondent had revoked the licence granted to the petitioner driving school. No application for transfer of the licence had been made by M.Chitra, said to be the power of attorney agent of the petitioner driving school. Even otherwise, the transfer of licence cannot be made, without the necessary conditions being fulfilled, as per the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the relevant rules framed thereunder. 7. Sureshkumar, in whose name the licence had been issued had only requested for the necessary details for the transfer of the licence. He had not submitted any application for the transfer of the licence in the name of any other person. Further, there is no provisions, either in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or in the rules framed thereunder, for the transfer of the licence in the name of a third party. Therefore, the request made by M.Chitra to transfer the licence granted in favour of the petitioner driving school, in her name, cannot be granted. 8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made by M.Chitra to transfer the licence issued in the name of the petitioner driving school, in her name, cannot be granted, as there is no provision for such transfer in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the rules framed thereunder. Further, no request had been made by Suresh Kumar, in whose name the licence had been issued, to transfer the licence in the name of M.Chitra. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner driving school cannot be countenanced. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Further, no request had been made by Suresh Kumar, in whose name the licence had been issued, to transfer the licence in the name of M.Chitra. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner driving school cannot be countenanced. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.