Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 752 (GUJ)

Vivek Ghanshyambhai Panchal v. State Of Gujarat

2020-09-07

ASHUTOSH J.SHASTRI, VIKRAM NATH

body2020
JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J. 1. The present Public Interest Litigation is filed by two public spirited citizens for the purpose of challenging Notification and Government Resolutions, which have been published by the respondent – authority. To summarize, the following are the prayers made in the present Public Interest Litigation. “(a) Be pleased to admit this petition. (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned Notification issued on 29.08.2017 in Gujarat Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Rules, 2017 by respondent no. 1 and on the basis of the same, the communication dated 09.10.2019 vide No. MVA/Kamgiri/ITI/7409 issued by respondent no. 2 also requires to be quashed and set aside by further pleased to quash and set aside the Grs dated 24.10.2019 and 22.11.2019 by respondent authorities in the interest of justice. (c) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that the withdrawal of licence work from respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. from RTO Department to respondent nos. 3 to 5 i.e. the ITI/Polytechnic Department is absolutely against the violation of statutory provisions prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 2008 by passing the valid qualification criteria ignoring the technical subject involved in the work in question is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, against the public policy, irrational, not in accordance with law be declared as null and void and hence requires to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. (d) During the pendency and final disposal of the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for postponement of the newly formed policy relation to withdrawal of learning licence work from RTO department and handed over it to ITI/Polytechnic department henceforth in view of Notification dated 29.09.2017, and the communication dated 09.10.2019 vide bearing No. MVA/ KAMGIRI/ ITI/7409 by issuing suitable and appropriate directions in the interest of justice. (e) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue suitable direction in the interest of justice. (f) Such other and further relief(s) that is just deems fit may be granted.” 2. Ms. Sneha Joshi, learned advocate representing the petitioners, has raised multiple contentions which have been narrated in the petition are reproduced hereinafter:- 2.1. (f) Such other and further relief(s) that is just deems fit may be granted.” 2. Ms. Sneha Joshi, learned advocate representing the petitioners, has raised multiple contentions which have been narrated in the petition are reproduced hereinafter:- 2.1. It is stated and submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 consolidates and amends the law relating to motor vehicles. This has been amended several times to keep upto date. Various Committees, National Public Commission, Road Safety Commission, Low Powered Two– Wheeler Committee, as also the Law Commission have gone into different aspects of road transport. That ultimately, a working group was therefore constituted in January, 1894 to review all the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, certain suggestions were related to taking care of (1) the fast increasing number of both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles in the country; (2) the need for encouraging adoption of higher technology in automotive sector; (3) the greater flow of passengers and freight with the least impediments so that islands of isolation are not created leading to regional or local imbalance; (4) concern for road safety standards for transportation of hazardous and explosive materials; (5) need for effective ways of tracking down traffic offenders etc. That keeping in mind the aforesaid suggestions, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 consolidated and rationalized various laws regulating road transport. The Act came into force with effect from 1st July, 1989 replacing the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Transport Development Council has suggested various points keeping in mind the concern for road safety standards and the said law has been amended in the year 1994. That from the statement of objects and reasons of the aforesaid Act, it has been narrated that the proposed amendments are essential in the overall interest of securing road safety and maintaining a clean environment. That in the aforesaid Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, securing road safety has remained one of the major and essential factors throughout since the inception of the Act. 2.2. That in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 213 prescribes appointment of Motor Vehicles Officers. That 213(4) is very clear in its terms. That in the aforesaid Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, securing road safety has remained one of the major and essential factors throughout since the inception of the Act. 2.2. That in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 213 prescribes appointment of Motor Vehicles Officers. That 213(4) is very clear in its terms. It states, “the Central Government may, having regard to the objects of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, prescribe the minimum qualifications which the said officers or any class thereof shall possess for being appointed as such.” That the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on 08.03.2019 issued Notification by exercising the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under the heading “Qualifications”, the same has been substituted, by (i) 10th Standard pass from any recognized board; (ii) a Diploma in Automobile Engineering (three year course) or a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (three year course), awarded by any institution recognized by the Central Government or State Government; and (iii) holding a driving licence authorizing to drive motor cycle with gear and light motor vehicles. That from the aforesaid provision of the statutory notification, it becomes clear that for the post of Motor Vehicles Officer, aforesaid qualifications criteria are essential for eligibility for the post in question. In the present case, by way of Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Rules 2017, several instructions and circulars have been issued to hand over the work relating to issuance of learning licence to respondent nos. 3 to 5 department from the respondent nos. 1 and 2, by passing the qualification criteria prescribed under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Not only that but the aforesaid illegal act of the State is absolutely violative of the enactment of the statute and statement of objects and reasons prescribed in the Act. Hence, the same requires to be quashed and set aside by issuing appropriate directions in the interest of people at large. 2.3. That it is required to be appreciated that the work relating to issuance of learning licence was being undertaken by the respondent no.1 department namely RTO Department since the inception of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. That the work in question involves technicalities and the post involves technical subjects and degree. 2.3. That it is required to be appreciated that the work relating to issuance of learning licence was being undertaken by the respondent no.1 department namely RTO Department since the inception of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. That the work in question involves technicalities and the post involves technical subjects and degree. The qualification criteria are very clear and specific, i.e. the Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with heavy licence of four wheeler. However, it seems that without any reason and logic, the work of learning licence has been totally withdrawn from RTO Department and handed it over to ITI and Polytechnic Department by issuing various amendments in Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and by GRs as the later class of section neither have any valid educational qualification nor connected in any manner with the technical subject and the work they have been allotted. The work in question is absolutely of technical nature and the classes of people whom the work have been allotted are not in any manner related with the work, as they hail from totally different departments with totally different activities like training and imparting education, which in no manner connected with the technical work allotted to them. That even if degree is possessed by the concerned person, merely holding degree does not confer the person expert in technical subject, wherein, he or she is never connected or involved with the subject on hand. It is also required to be appreciated that the State has even shouldered the burden of Rs.100/- additionally per candidate. That the aforesaid financial burden would obviously go to the pocket of people at large by collecting various taxes and the same amounts to wastage and misuse of the fund of people at large. That in ITI/Polytechnic Department, time allotted is only two hours between 3:30 and 5:30. Staff is also very lesser in comparison to RTO. So, without any infrastructure and incurring the financial burden of Rs.100/- per candidate, the State has withdrawn the work and handed it over to other department by passing the rules and regulations which are against the enactment stated in the Act. That due to non-qualified and non-technical staff of ITI/Polytechnic Department, the process of issuance of learning licence work has stalled, long pendency of 3 months have reached and day by day, the same is being increased substantially. That due to non-qualified and non-technical staff of ITI/Polytechnic Department, the process of issuance of learning licence work has stalled, long pendency of 3 months have reached and day by day, the same is being increased substantially. The people at large are being suffered and are under tremendous pressure and hardship. The concerned persons who obtained the licence from the non-technical and non-qualified officers from ITI/Polytechnic would cause danger to the life of the people, as the same raises the doubt about the quality of work and then their performance on road. Now, the chances of getting the licence for below – performance candidates would be more, as the licences are being issued by non-expert and non-qualified persons, thus, the same would endanger the human life and issues of road safety would arise more. The same is absolutely violative of the Statue and the enactment prescribed in the Act. 2.4. That in Rule 4 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, qualifications of Testing Officers have been described. That by impugned G.R. dated 22.11.2019, it becomes clear that all HODs have been qualified as Testing Officers irrespective of possessing the qualified degree or subject, absolutely against the law, which is illegal and violative of the statute prescribed under the Act. It is submitted that work in question is related to issuance of learning licence. That Section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directly related with the same, which states that “Any learner’s licence for driving a motor cycle in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, after such commencement, be deemed to be effective for driving a motor cycle with or without gear.” That aforesaid section lays down the procedure in making an application for the grant of learner’s licence. Passing the test as per the Rules on the road and a strict medical test are pre-conditions for the issuance of the learner’s licence. Thus, from the aforesaid criteria prescribed of medical test, all HODs to whom the aforesaid task has been handed over are not having the qualified degree or having the expert knowledge qua the work allotted. If the work allotted is performed, obviously the quality of production of work would be below poor and would further add the agony of people at large in view of the road safety standards and chances of losing more human life on road. If the work allotted is performed, obviously the quality of production of work would be below poor and would further add the agony of people at large in view of the road safety standards and chances of losing more human life on road. The aforesaid action on the part of the State is really not understandable in its logic, as the same is absolutely against the law and against the interest of people at large and it requires to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice by issuing suitable and appropriate directions in the interest of justice. 3. Ms. Joshi, learned advocate has contended that this Public Interest Litigation is essentially for the purpose of taking care of the interest of people at large in the State of Gujarat who are applying for driving licence. A grievance is raised that by virtue of impugned Notification dated 29.08.2017, original Rules i.e. Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 came to be amended, which is named Gujarat Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2017. In view of the said Notification, Rule 3(B) has been inserted after Rule 3(A), whereby, the Principal of Industrial Training Center who is in charge of the main center in the respective talukas and under whose jurisdiction, ITI has been situated is determined as license authority for the candidates for issuing learning licence. Further, by virtue of Rule 4(5) which is also under challenge, the supervisor who possessed the qualification of Automobile or Mechanical Engineering Degree from the concerned ITI situated in respective Talukas, where the candidates are situated, would be the testing officers for the purpose of testing in view of Section 8(5) of the Act and as such, according to Ms. Sneha Joshi, learned advocate, both these amended Rules are violative of the provisions enacted in the aforesaid Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. Learned advocate Ms. Joshi has further submitted that a person merely holding an Automobile or Mechanical Engineering Degree does not become an expert in the subject involved in the present case and surprisingly, before issuance of Government Resolution dated 24.10.2019, which is also under challenge, learning licence work has already started and, therefore, this action on the part of the authority is shockingly illegal, strange and against law. It has further been contended that this impugned Notification and the Government Resolution are not only against law, but harsh, arbitrary, capricious, unjust, discriminatory and amounts to breach of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the principles of natural justice. 3.1. Apart from this, it has further been contended that if this is allowed to be implemented, it would be a great hardship to the people at large and the process of issuance of learning licence to the candidates would be derailed and as such, by raising this kind of multiple plea before us, learned advocate Ms. Joshi insisted for the reliefs as prayed in the present Public Interest Litigation. However, candidly, Ms. Joshi has submitted that there is no dispute that while issuing such Notification and Government Resolution and the amending provisions, the authority has got power under the main Parent Act and as such, so far as the powers to publish this Notification and Government Resolution, by which, the amendment has taken place are concerned, there is no issue raised in the present proceedings. So essentially, arbitrariness and hardship to the people at large appears to have been voiced out in the present Public Interest Litigation. 3.2. By referring to this impugned Notification, learned advocate Ms. Joshi has submitted that this Notification be quashed and set aside by granting the relief as prayed for. No other submissions have been made. 4. As against this, Mr. D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent – State, has vehemently contended that the present Public Interest Litigation is meritless and on the contrary, the identity issue of the petitioner conveniently does not appear to have been disclosed by the petitioner and private interest appears to have been agitated in the shape of Public Interest Litigation and as such, this petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. Mr. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has further contended that, on the contrary, keeping in view the larger public interest and the burden of process of issuance of licence, a streamline process is introduced by way of Notification and Government Resolution by amending the Rules and as such, on the contrary, keeping in view the hardship of the public at large, the State authorities have come out with the present amendment and the Notification. According to Mr. According to Mr. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, the State Government is completely empowered to frame Rules for appointment of licensing authority by virtue of Section 28 of the Act and when the State is exercising the powers, which are entrusted by the Statue, the challenge to the same would be circumscribed since the said Rules have a statutory flavor. 4.1. Mr. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that Rule 11 deals with the preliminary test and that is a test of objective in nature and questions are forming part of the data relating to the basic knowledge of the applicant about traffic signals, road regulations, duties of the driver etc., and the said objective test is being taken uninterruptedly by the designated authority, right from the year 2007 and in taking this basic test for verification of the knowledge of the traffic of a candidate who is applying for licence, no special expertise is required and this process is going on right from the year 2007-08 and there is no heart-burning so far projected by the people at large. 4.2. Mr. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that there is a specific time slot prescribed and entrusted from the year 2007 to various offices of Taluka Mamlatdar and Secretary, Western Automobiles Association by amending Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and as such, since this process is going on right from the year 2006, to the surprise of the authority, the present petitioners have approached at this relevant point of time by way of present Public Interest Litigation and which according to Mr. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, is a sponsored litigation. There is neither any personal right being infringed nor any public interest at large is at risk and, therefore, this kind of petition may not be allowed to be encouraged by granting any relief, especially when challenge to the Notification is not for lack of any authority. Resultantly, the petition is requested to be dismissed with costs. 5. There is neither any personal right being infringed nor any public interest at large is at risk and, therefore, this kind of petition may not be allowed to be encouraged by granting any relief, especially when challenge to the Notification is not for lack of any authority. Resultantly, the petition is requested to be dismissed with costs. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, including the impugned Notification as well as the Government Resolution, it ex-facie appears to this Court that the said issuance of Notification and the Government Resolution and the resultant amendment in the Rules, is an action well within the scope of authority and there is a categorical admission, on the part of the petitioners on oath that “the petitioners have no dispute qua the powers provided in Section 28 of the Act and the State Government is empowered to exercise the said powers”. This clear assertion on oath reflecting on page 172 of the petition compilation is suggesting that this challenge made in the petition is not on account of any lack of authority. 5.1. Apart from that, on perusal of the Notification and the Government Resolution, which is amended, it clearly appears to have been issued in exercise of statutory provisions, which is very much visible from pages 24, 25 and 26 and the main object is to decentralize the work of issuance of licence process. Keeping in view the interest of the public at large, since various Talukas are being entrusted the work of undertaking such process of issuance of learning licence and as such prima facie, we are of the view that when the Notification and the Government Resolution is issued, in exercise of powers, keeping in view the convenience of the people at large, the grievance voiced out in the petition appears to be not sustainable. Apart from that, Notification dated 24.10.2019 is also reflecting clearly, that out of 228 ITIs, approximately, 197 Industrial Training Institutes have been entrusted this work and thereto in the time slot of two hours i.e., from 15:30 to 17:30 and, as such, the State authorities have also kept in mind the fact that all Industrial Training Institutes also may not be disturbed. With this entrustment of work on the above hourly basis, the Government Resolution is appearing to be taking a balanced decision to streamline the process of learning licence work. This Notification dated 24.10.2019 is also indicating that the instructor as well as the Principal of ITI has to act in co-ordination with RTO with a view to see that the work can be carried out in lucid process and a moderate licence fee is prescribed at Rs.100/- payable from the State Regional Transport Office to said ITIs. A perusal of further Notification which is sought to be challenged is also issued well within the scope of authority. These Notifications which are issued in exercise of specific powers vested in the Statute have got statutory flavor and as such, an overall reading of the impugned Notification and the Government Resolution is giving a clear impression that with a view to facilitate the public at large, this process is diversified to various ITIs in their respective Talukas, so that the people at large may not have to reach at far away places for learning licence and, as such on the contrary, the action is in the interest of the public at large. 5.2. Apart from this, we have been posted with the fact by Mr. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader that this process of issuance of learning licence is being undertaken since long and challenge appears to be at a belated stage. The stand taken by the authority reflecting in para 7.1. is reproduced hereinafter :- “7.1. In this regard, it is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that as mentioned herein-above, in Rule 11 the preliminary test that is being taken by the licensing authority is objective in nature. The questions that form part of the question bank relates to basic knowledge of applicant about traffic signals, road regulations, duties of a driver etc. The said objective test is being taken by the respondent authorities since the year 2007. In the said objective preliminary test the applicant is required to give correct answers of atleast 11 questions from the 15 questions asked during the course of examination. This is not the driving competency test. IT is just a basic test for verification of the knowledge of the traffic that a respective applicant possesses. No special knowledge was required to conduct such test. This is not the driving competency test. IT is just a basic test for verification of the knowledge of the traffic that a respective applicant possesses. No special knowledge was required to conduct such test. The said system of issuance of learning licence pursuant to the preliminary objective test is being conducted by the respondent authorities since the year 2007-08. Moreover, the said system for giving the work of issuance of learning licence to ITI has been enacted by the respondent authorities for the convenience of public at large. The applicant can submit an online application for taking preliminary test and based on the time slot that is being allotted to the applicant, he can visit his nearby ITI center and can appear in the preliminary test. The system is transparent as the applicant is required to appear in the preliminary test to be taken online on computers. The respondent authorities by establishing the said system shall now be able to issue learning licence from 221 ITI centers located across the State instead of 36 RTO offices. Moreover, the ITI is empower to issue only learning licence and for issuance of permanent licences the applicants are required to visit the RTO offices and are obligated to appear in competency tests. Even otherwise, in the year 2006, the work of issuance of learning licences was entrusted to the offices of Taluka Mamlatdar and Secretary, Western Automobile Association by amending the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. However, the petitioner at relevant point of time has not approached this Hon’ble Court by raising any grievance, whatsoever. Hence, the petition is a sponsored litigation that has been initiated on behest of some persons having vested interests.” 5.3. We have also examined the other aspect of arbitrariness, as has been tried to be projected, but we are not satisfied with the said plea raised in the petition, especially when the hardship of the people on the contrary is taken care of. Additionally, the impugned Notification and the Government Resolutions have been issued by a specific lawful authority and there is no issue of lack of authority as found by us nor have been agitated. Accordingly, challenge to Notification dated 29.08.2017 as well as Government Resolution dated 24.10.2019 and communication dated 09.10.2019 is found to be incorrect and unsustainable. 5.4. Additionally, the impugned Notification and the Government Resolutions have been issued by a specific lawful authority and there is no issue of lack of authority as found by us nor have been agitated. Accordingly, challenge to Notification dated 29.08.2017 as well as Government Resolution dated 24.10.2019 and communication dated 09.10.2019 is found to be incorrect and unsustainable. 5.4. Additionally, we are being benefited by few observations of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Praveen Kumar reported in (2017) 11 SCC 283 . Since we consider it appropriate to take it in aid, we reproduce the relevant observations hereinafter:- “7……….Following portion of the judgment of the High Court discussing these aspects is worth a mention and the same is reproduced as under (Sachin Gupta ; SCC Online Del. Paras 46). “46. It is further settled law that the courts must approach subordinate legislative instruments with considerable amount of caution. Presumption and constitutionality and reasonableness ordinarily attached to legislative enactment, applies to statutory rules also. In P.V. Mani v. Union of India, a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court observed as under : (SCC Online Ker para 18) “18. …. It is therefore, needless to add that the courts shall approach subordinate legislative instruments with considerable amount of caution and examination for absence of competence or reasonableness or fairness and other invalidating circumstances with almost the same standards as legislative enactments are dealt with by courts. The presumption of constitutionality, competence and reasonableness ordinarily attaches to such instruments just as much as to legislative enactments, as is evident from the following observations from Administrative Agencies and the Courts by Cooper: “Where the legislature has clearly delegated such authority, the only issue that can normally be raised as to the validity of he rule concern the question whether it is vires as exceeding the scope of the authority delegated, and whether it is violative of due process guarantees. These issues are not often presented and accordingly such regulations are normally treated on the same basis as legislative acts.” It is not that such instruments are absolutely immune from attacks. Such attacks should be considered only on production of prima facie proof as to such invalidating circumstances. These issues are not often presented and accordingly such regulations are normally treated on the same basis as legislative acts.” It is not that such instruments are absolutely immune from attacks. Such attacks should be considered only on production of prima facie proof as to such invalidating circumstances. The court shall not assume that a subordinate legislative instrument is invalid for absence of competence or bona fides or fairness or reasonableness and cast the negative burden on the rule-making authority. It should be just the other way; the person who challenges the vires of a rule has to prove his challenge as much as a person who challenges a legislative enactment. If he fails in such attempt the challenge can only be thrown out.’ 47. In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, it has been held that the test of the arbitrariness applicable to the delegated legislation is different from the one applicable to executive actions. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced for ready reference :(SCC p.314, para 13) “13. It is next submitted before us that the amended Rules are arbitrary, unreasonable and cause undue hardship and, therefore, violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Although the protection of Article 19(1)(g) may not be available to the appellants, the rules must, undoubtedly, satisfy the test of Article 14, which is a guarantee against arbitrary action. However, one must bear in mind that what is being challenged here under Article 14 is not executive action but delegated legislation. The tests of arbitrary action which apply to executive actions do not necessarily apply to delegated legislation. In order that delegated legislation. In order that delegated legislation can be struck down, such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; a law which could not be reasonable expected to emanate from an authority delegated with the law-making power. In Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (SCC pp 689-90 para 75) this Court said that a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. A subordinate legislation may be questioned under Article 14 on the ground that it is unreasonable. “unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary”. A subordinate legislation may be questioned under Article 14 on the ground that it is unreasonable. “unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary”. Drawing a comparison between the law in England and in India, the Court further observed “that in England the Judges would say, “Parliament never intended the authority to make such Rules; they are unreasonable and ultra vires”. In India, arbitrariness is not a separate ground since it will come within the embargo of Article 14 of the Constitution. But subordinate legislation must be so arbitrary that it could not be said to be in conformity with the statute or that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution.” 48. Further, as the Rules are legislative in character they cannot be challenged on the grounds of mala fides. In B.D. Gupta v. State of U.P., of the Supreme Court held :(SCC p.6 para 17) “17. ……….. If the Rules were framed for making regular appointments in the Civil Aviation Department, there was no reason why they should have been confined only to three posts which included the post of Director. Secondly, he pointed out that whereas the post of Director was not a promotional one earlier and was, therefore, open to external candidates as well, it was made promotional to suit Captain Singh. These circumstances according to us do not prove the mala fides. Admittedly, the Rules are made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are, therefore, a piece of legislation. It is well settled that no legislation can be challenged on the ground of mala fides.” 5.5. In addition to this, to test the arbitrariness of an action, basically, the underlying object is to be kept in mind. A Statue is best interpreted when we know why it is enacted. So if a Statute is looked at in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of statute maker, its schemes, sections, clauses etc., may take colour, which was different when the statute is looked at without glasses provided in the context. A Statue is best interpreted when we know why it is enacted. So if a Statute is looked at in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of statute maker, its schemes, sections, clauses etc., may take colour, which was different when the statute is looked at without glasses provided in the context. This proposition is well defined by the Apex Court in the case of Gaurav Aseem Avtej vs. Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited and Others, reported in 2018(6) SCC 518 and as such, when the amendment has been challenged in the present Public Interest Litigation, we undertook the exercise to examine the aforesaid aspect and from the overall consideration of the background of facts and the submissions and the provisions which are questioned in the present petition, testing the same from every corner of challenge, we are of the considered opinion that the challenge is meritless and the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is a settled position of law that ultra viresness of any Rules or the amendment may not only be tested on the basis of arbitrariness or hardship, when there is no lack of authority in amending. The wisdom of framers will have to be looked into and in that sphere, the Court’s jurisdiction is circumscribed by catena of decisions and as such, in overall consideration of the aforesaid background of peculiar facts, we deem it proper not to entertain this Public Interest Litigation, as the same is found to be meritless. 6. Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed with no order as to costs.