AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Ramasubramanian, J.—While the first three writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.3477, 3486 and 3790 of 2009 are for the issue of a Writ of
Mandamus to forbear the respondents from granting or issuing Auto rickshaw permits in pursuance of the draw conducted on 1.3.2009, the fourth
writ petition viz., W.P. No. 3884 of 2009 has been filed for quashing a Government Order on the basis of which, the entire process of selection of
persons for the grant of Auto rickshaw permits was undertaken.
I have heard Mr. S. Govindaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in two writ petitions and Mr. N. Karunakaran and Mr. AL.
Manoharan, petitioners appearing in person in the other two writ petitions and Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the respondents.
By successive orders passed in G.O. Ms. Nos. 1492, 166, 841, 1214 and 1431, Home Department, dated 30.10.1998, 10.2.1999,
14.6.1999, 1.9.1999 and 29.10.1999 respectively, the Government imposed a ban and continued the same, on registration of new three seater
Auto rickshaws in the City of Chennai. However, by an order in G.O. Ms. No. 1099, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 7.12.2005, the
Government decided to grant 5,000 fresh permits in the City of Chennai and adjoining areas and directed the Transport Commissioner and
Regional Transport Authority, Chennai, to grant 5,000 fresh permits to three seater LPG dedicated Auto rickshaws to the owner-cum-driver
applicants in the said area in relaxation of the existing ban.
Simultaneously, another order was issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1100, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 7.12.2005, introducing a ""Loan
Scheme with subsidy component"" with a view to provide self-employment and to help unemployed youth to acquire Auto rickshaws for their
livelihood. In paragraph-4 of the said G.O., detailed guidelines were issued for the scheme. Some of the guidelines, which may be of relevance to
the cases on hand, are as follows:
(a) The scheme is applicable to owner-cum-driver applicants only.
(b) The beneficiary/applicant should possess a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle-transport vehicle/Auto rickshaw.
(c) The beneficiary''s annual income should not exceed Rs. 36,000/- per annum.
(d) The beneficiary should not already possess an Auto rickshaw permit in his name to avail the subsidy.
(e) The permit granted under the scheme should not be transferred except in the case of death of the holder of the permit.
The above Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 1100, dated 7.12.2005, was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 1809 of 2006 by the
petitioner in W.P. No. 3486 of 2009. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P. No. 3790 of 2009 also filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 40582 of 2005. But
by an order dated 24.1.2006, W.P. No. 1809 of 2006 was dismissed, forcing the petitioner therein to file an appeal in W.A. No. 181 of 2006.
The writ appeal W.A. No. 181 of 2006 was taken up by the Division Bench along with W.P. No. 40582 of 2005 and both of them were
disposed of on 5.9.2006, on the basis of a statement made by the learned Government Pleader that the scheme introduced under G.O.Ms. No.
1100, dated 7.12.2005, was withdrawn by the Government.
Thereafter, the Government issued a fresh order in G.O.Ms. No. 322, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 1.3.2007, cancelling G.O. Ms.
Nos.1099 and 1100, dated 7.12.2005 and approving the guidelines for the loan-cum-subsidy scheme to 5,000 beneficiaries in Chennai
Metropolitan area for the purchase of new LPG driven three seater Auto rickshaws. The Government also permitted the Regional Transport
Authorities of Chennai Metropolitan area, to grant 5,000 contract carriage permits to LPG driven three seater new Auto rickshaws under the loan-
cum-subsidy scheme and another 5,000 contract carriage permits without subsidy under general category. To facilitate the grant of such permits,
the earlier ban order of the year 1999, was relaxed. The guidelines for the subsidy scheme were furnished in Annexure-I and the guidelines for
non-subsidy scheme were furnished in Annexure-II to the said Government Order.
Annexure-I to the aforesaid Government Order which contained the guidelines for the grant of permits under the loan-cum-subsidy scheme,
prescribed as many as 17 conditions, some of which are as follows:
(a) The scheme shall be applicable to Chennai Metropolitan Area.
(b) The applicant should be a resident within the Chennai Metropolitan Area.
(c) The age of the applicant shall be between 25 and 40 years.
(d) The applicant shall possess minimum educational qualification of a pass in 10th standard for the purpose of availing this scheme.
(e) This scheme is applicable to driver-cum-owner only.
(f) The applicant shall possess a valid driving licence to drive a light Motor Vehicle with Badge number/Transport Vehicle and shall have an
experience of not less than five years.
(g) The applicant should not have possessed any Auto rickshaw permit.
(h) More than one permit shall not be allotted to the same family under this scheme.
(i) To avail the permit under this scheme, the family income of the applicant should not exceed Rs. 36,000/- per annum.
(j) Other things being equal preference shall be given to Woman, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe candidates considering the seniority in age
and experience in driving the vehicle and for others the seniority in age and experience of driving the vehicles.
Similarly, Annexure-II to the Government Order, contained only one prescription for the grant of permit under the non-subsidised scheme and it
is as follows:
As the scheme is applicable to Chennai Metropolitan Area, the applicant shall be a resident of Chennai Metropolitan Area.
Again the scheme framed in G.O. Ms. No. 322, dated 1.3.2007, was also challenged in a writ petition in W.P. No. 27802 of 2007, by the
very same Association which is the petitioner in W.P. No. 3486 of 2009 herein. The prayer in the writ petition was for the issue of a Writ of
Mandamus to direct the respondents to take on file, all the applications filed in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 322, dated 1.3.2007 and to consider all
of them in accordance with law. The contention of the petitioner therein was that there is a statutory duty cast upon the respondents to consider all
applications and to prepare the list of eligible persons after screaming.
When the above writ petition was pending, the Government came up with an amendment to G.O. Ms. No. 322, dated 1.3.2007, under an
order in G.O.Ms. No. 1645, Home (Transport-III) Department, dated 18.12.2008. By the said amendment -
(a) The number of permits to be granted under the subsidy scheme was brought down from 5,000 to 2,500 and the number of permits to be
granted under the non-subsidy scheme was increased from 5,000 to 7,500.
(b) The minimum and maximum age prescribed under condition No. 3 of Annexure-I for the subsidised scheme were modified from 25 and 40
years to 23 and 45 years respectively and
(c) The minimum educational qualifications prescribed in condition No. 4 of Annexure-I was reduced from a pass in 10th standard to a pass in 8th
standard.
By another order in G.O.Ms. No. 96, Home (Transport-III) Department, dated 30.1.2009, the number of years of experience stipulated as 5
years under condition No. 6 of Annexure-I of G.O. Ms. No. 322, dated 1.3.2007, was also brought down to 3 years.
Thus, as a cumulative effect of G.O. Ms. No. 322, dated 1.3.2007, amended by G.O. Ms. No. 1645, dated 18.12.2008 and G.O. Ms. No.
96, dated 30.1.2009, the Government decided to grant 7,500 permits under the non-subsidised scheme for general category and 2,500 permits
under the subsidised scheme. The only condition for applying for a permit under the non-subsidised scheme (general category) is that the applicant
should be a resident of Chennai Metropolitan Area. On the other hand, an applicant under the subsidised scheme, had to fulfil several eligibility
criteria such as (i) a pass in 8th standard (ii) lower and upper age limits of 23 and 45 years (iii) residency in Chennai Metropolitan Area (iv)
possessing a valid driving licence with badge number and an experience of not less than 3 years and being a driver-cum-owner.
After the issue of G.O.Ms. No. 96, dated 30.1.2009, the Transport Department published notifications in English and Vernacular Newspapers
dated 4.2.2009, inviting interested persons to obtain applications for the grant of permits under both categories. It was indicated in the notification
that 1,653 permits will be issued under the subsidy scheme and 2,468 permits will be issued under the non-subsidy scheme.
Since the response to the notifications was overwhelming, the respondents issued a press release on 13.2.2009 that a draw would be
conducted for selecting applicants for the grant of permits. Accordingly, a draw was conducted on 1.3.2009.
Immediately after the draw, W.P.Nos.3477 and 3486 of 2009 came to be filed on 2.3.2009, merely seeking to forbear the respondents from
issuing permits on the basis of the draw held on 1.3.2009. These two writ petitions came up for admission on 3.3.2009 and the petitioners
appeared in person and argued. After hearing them, I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice and posted the writ
petitions to 9.3.2009. I also directed the respondents not to issue permits in the meantime.
On 9.3.2009, the respondents filed a common counter in the first two writ petitions and they were adjourned for enquiry. In the meantime, the
next two writ petitions were filed and hence all of them were taken up together by the consent of parties for final disposal.
The petitioners challenge the process adopted by the respondents for selecting persons for the grant of Auto rickshaw permits, basically on the
following grounds:
(a) u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is the Regional Transport Authority, who is conferred with the power to grant a contract carriage
permit subject to the conditions laid down and the State Government has the power to limit the number of contract carriages either generally or for
any specified type, u/s 74(3)(a), only if so, directed by the Central Government. So far the Central Government has not issued any such direction
and hence the restriction of the number of Auto rickshaw permits by the respondents, was in violation of statutory provisions.
(b) u/s 68(1) of the Act, a State Transport Authority and several Regional Transport Authorities are constituted for the purpose of exercising and
discharging the powers and functions specified in sub section (3) and such powers cannot be exercised by any one not authorised by sub sections
(2) and (3) of Section 68 and Section 69. In this case, there has been a violation of these provisions.
(c) u/s 80(2), a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind. Therefore, the rejection of
the applications for permit, of all those who were not successful in the draw of lots, is violative of Section 80(2). At any rate, the second proviso to
sub section (2) of Section 80 makes it obligatory for a Regional or State Transport Authority, to give to the applicant, an opportunity of being
heard and to communicate in writing, the reasons for refusal of an application for permit. This was also not followed by the respondents.
(d) Even if a limit upon the number of permits is imposed, the Act or the Rules do not authorise the conduct of a draw of lots. Rule 165 of the
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, enables the Transport Authority to stop receiving applications, once the prescribed limit is reached.
(e) Rules 166 and 167 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, list out the grounds on which an application cannot be rejected and the grounds
on which an application can be rejected, respectively. The non-selection of a person in the draw of lots, is not listed as one of the grounds for
rejection.
I have carefully considered the above contentions and I shall deal with them one after another.
The first contention is based upon Sections 69, 73 and 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But an overview of the Act in entirety shows that
Chapter-V of the Act, containing Sections 66 to 96 deals with ""Control of Transport Vehicles"". Section 67 confers power upon the State
Government to control road transport. Clauses (c) and (d) of sub section (1) of Section 67 empower the State Government to issue appropriate
directions to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority, having regard to -
(i) the desirability of preventing the deterioration of the road system and
(ii) the desirability of preventing uneconomic competition among the holders of permits. Though Clauses (i) and (ii) specify the matters in respect of
which such directions can be issued by the State Government, Clause (iii) is a residuary clause, since it uses the expression ""any other matter"".
Therefore the power of the State Government to restrict the number of permits, stems essentially from the broad powers conferred by Section 67.
The mandate contained in Section 74(3)(a) that the State Government shall limit the number of contract carriages, if so directed by the Central
Government, cannot be understood to mean that such power can be exercised only when so directed by the Central Government. Section 74(3)
(a) reads as follows:
The State Government shall, if so directed by the Central Government, having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant
matters, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of contract
carriages generally or of any specified type as may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in towns with a population of
not less than five lakhs.
A careful reading of Section 74(3)(a) extracted above, would show that whenever a direction is issued by the Central Government, the State
Government is obliged to direct the Transport Authorities to limit the number of contract carriages. It does not mean that the State Government has
no power to independently issue a direction to limit the number of contract carriages. If no direction is issued by the Central Government, the State
Government is free to issue such a direction restricting the number of contract carriages. This discretion may or may not be exercised by the State
Government of its own accord, in the absence of a direction from the Central Government. But this discretion will not be available, once a direction
is issued by the Central Government. Therefore the first contention that u/s 74(3)(a), the State Government is empowered to restrict the number of
contract carriages, only if a direction by the Central Government is issued, cannot be accepted.
The second contention of the petitioners is that there are different Regional Transport Authorities, constituted statutorily u/s 68(1) of the Act,
with area of restriction over which they exercise jurisdiction. The grievance of the petitioners is that under the notification dated 4.2.2009, the
Regional Transport Authority, Chennai, was appointed as Nodal Officer, though areas other than those coming under his jurisdiction were also
included in the draw of lots.
But factually, it was only the draw of lots that was conducted in a centralised fashion. The scrutiny of applications and issue of permits, even
according to the respondents, would be done only by the concerned Regional Transport Authorities. The duties and functions conferred by the
provisions of the Statute, according to the respondents, would be performed only by those indicated in the Act. Therefore the second contention
also cannot be accepted.
The third contention is that u/s 80(2), an application shall not ordinarily be rejected and that by virtue of the second proviso to sub section (2)
of Section 80, an opportunity of being heard and an order in writing are necessary for the rejection of an application. Sub section (2) of Section 80
and the second proviso thereunder, read as follows:
(2) A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 66 shall not
ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act.
Provided further that where a Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in Sub-section (1) of
Section 66 refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the
refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
But the above provisions apply under normal circumstances. The above provision contains a procedural safeguard against arbitrary exercise of
power by the State or Regional Transport Authorities. Considering the fact that the number of applications received for the grant of permits far
exceeded the number of permits decided to be issued, the respondents have resorted to the system of draw of lots. Therefore, the compliance with
the requirements of Section 80(2), cannot be demanded. The statistics furnished by the respondents in paragraphs-9 to 11 of their common
counter affidavit shows that by the notifications published in various newspapers, applications were invited for the grant of 2,468 permits under the
non-subsidy scheme and 1,653 permits under the subsidy scheme. The total number of applications received were 22,171 under the non-subsidy
scheme and 4,373 under the subsidy scheme. In view of such overwhelming response, it was not possible to provide an opportunity of hearing and
to pass an order of rejection. The draw conducted by the respondents in full public view, is itself the opportunity for all the applicants. No
application is sought to be rejected by the respondents for any special reasons. What was conducted by the respondents was a selection by draw
of lots and not a rejection by a scrutiny of individual applications. Therefore, Section 80(2) has no application to the situation on hand. As stated
above, the requirements of Section 80(2) are based upon the principles of natural justice. They would have no application when all the applicants
are treated on par on the same pedestal and the chance of getting a permit was not made dependent upon the whims and fancies of the Transport
Authorities. Therefore the third contention cannot also be accepted.
The fourth and fifth contentions can be taken up together, since they are based upon Rules 165 to 167 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
Rules, which read as follows:
Limit upon number of permits. - When a Transport Authority has in exercise of its powers under the Act, imposed a limit upon the number of
permits of any class which may be granted for a specified route or a specified area and has already granted such number of permits of that class,
the Transport Authority or the Secretary of the Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by the Transport Authority, may decline to receive
further application for such permits in respect of any such route or areas.
Not be rejected - grounds - (1) The Transport Authority shall not reject an application for the grant or renewal of any permit or for the grant
of or renewal of counter-signature of any permit on any or all of the following grounds namely:
(i) When an application is presented to a Transport Authority not having jurisdiction;
(ii) When the form of application has not been correctly filled in;
(iii) Where the prescribed fee has been omitted to be paid; and
(iv) Where the application is not made in the prescribed form.
(2) In every such case, the Transport Authority shall return the application for presentation to the Transport Authority concerned or for rectification
of other defects informing the applicant of the correct procedure in the matter and giving him not more than seven days from the date of receipt of
the communication to comply with such direction, failing which the application will stand rejected.
Stage carriage - grounds on which application can be rejected. - The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the
case may be, may reject an application for the grant of a stage carriage permit on one or more of the following grounds, namely:
(i) Financial instability as evidenced by insolvency or decree remaining unsatisfied as on thirty days prior to the date of consideration of the
application or failure to produce:
(a) in the case of a new entrant, a solvency certificate from an Officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of a Tahsildar for a sum of
Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only):
Provided that purchase of a motor vehicle from money borrowed or under hire purchase agreement shall not be a disqualification by itself;
(b) in the case of others, a current clearance certificate in respect of Income Tax and Motor Vehicles Tax:
Provided that this clause shall not apply in cases where the applicant is a State Transport Undertaking.
(ii) Unsatisfactory performance as a stage carriage service operator by the applicant as evidenced by his having been punished for two times or
more for any one or more of the offences specified below within thirty-six months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of
application -
(a) Overloading;
(b) Plying without permit;
(c) Plying without payment of tax or plying without payment of tax before the due date;
(d) Plying on an unauthorised route or making an unauthorised trip;
(e) Plying without certificate of fitness;
(f) Non-adherence to the schedule of timings;
(g) Collection of excess fare; and
(h) Conveyance of goods or luggage prohibited by or under any law:
Provided that orders of punishment which are stayed by the Appellate Authority shall not be taken into account for the above purpose:
Provided further that this clause shall not apply in cases where the applicant is a State Transport Undertaking.
(iii) Trafficking in permits.
Rule 165 entitles the Transport Authority to decline to receive any further application, whenever he had imposed a limit upon the number of
permits and the permits already granted had already reached such ceiling limits. But in the case on hand, the total number of permits to be issued,
has been restricted by an order issued by the Government. As we have seen in the narration of facts, the Government had issued a ban for
registering new three seater Auto rickshaws way back in the year 1998 under G.O.Ms. No. 1492, dated 30.10.1998. The ban was extended
periodically under G.O.Ms. No. 166, dated 10.2.1999, G.O.Ms. No. 841, dated 14.8.1999, G.O.Ms. No. 1214, dated 1.9.1999 and G.O.Ms.
No. 1439, dated 29.10.1999. The ban continued upto 7.12.2005 and was lifted by G.O.Ms.Nos.1099 and 1100, dated 7.12.2005. These
orders were later modified by G.O.Ms. No. 322, dated 1.3.2007 and subsequently by G.O.Ms. No. 1645, dated 18.12.1998 and G.O.Ms. No.
96, dated 30.1.2009. Therefore it is clear that it was not the Regional Transport Authority but the Government, which had imposed a limit upon
the number of permits to be issued. Rule 165 applies only when the Regional Transport had imposed a limit. Hence the reliance placed upon Rule
165 is erroneous.
Equally the reliance placed upon Rules 166 and 167 is ill founded. The stage of scrutiny of individual applications, has not yet arisen. Since
there were 22,171 applications for the grant of 2,468 permits under the non-subsidy scheme, the respondents resorted to a selection by draw of
lots. After such selection, the respondents may have to take into account the provisions of these Rules, before the final decision to issue or not to
issue permit is taken.
Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted in the course of arguments that the applications of all the applicants, who
have been selected in the draw of lots, will be scrutinised now to find out their eligibility for the grant of permits. Therefore, Rules 166 and 167 may
come into play only now. Hence, the fourth and fifth contentions of the petitioners deserve to be rejected.
Mr. S. Govindaraman, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no transparency in the draw of lots and that information
about the draw of lots was not furnished sufficiently in advance and that on the appointed day, all that had happened was that the names of
selected candidates were just displayed in a screen.
But the above contention stems from the understanding of the petitioners that a draw of lots could only be by a manual process in which the
names or numbers are written in slips of papers and all of them are put into a huge box, from out of which, a few slips are taken out randomly.
With the advancement of technology, a draw of lots can now be conducted with the help of a software, which is what has been done by the
respondents. In paragraph-28 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the National Informatics Centre (NIC) supplied a software
known as ""Hyber Text Pre Processer (P.H.P) and Structured Query Language (MYSQL) Program"". With the use of this software, the
respondents adopted a ""Random Selection Method"", for the draw of lots.
The Technical Director of the National Informatics Centre also filed an affidavit about the above software employed by them for the draw of
lots. A demonstration of the manner in which the software works, was also made by the Official of the National Informatics Centre in the Court
Hall for my easy appreciation, using a Laptop. It is seen from the demonstration that once the application number, name and address of all the
applicants are fed into the computer and a command is given to select a particular number of persons, the computer selects the required number of
persons on a random basis and displays their names on the screen within a few seconds. Since the selection is made in such a short span of time,
the applicants appear to have entertained a doubt about the reliability of the process. But I find no reason to doubt that a scientific process had
been adopted by the respondents to select 2,468 candidates from out of 22,171 applicants. Therefore the contention that there was in fact no
draw of lots, cannot be accepted.
Lastly it was contended by Mr. S.Govindaraman, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as some of the petitioners appearing in person,
that the drivers of Auto rickshaws who have been in the field for decades and who carry a badge issued by the Transport Department, could not
succeed in the draw of lots. On the contrary, several persons, who are either businessmen or Government Servants have been selected in the draw
of lots. Similarly, persons who already have a permit in their own name or in the name of their family members, have been selected in the draw of
lots. Therefore, the petitioners submitted that the selection process should not be approved.
But unfortunately for the petitioners, the only qualification prescribed under Annexure-II to G.O.Ms. No. 322, Home Department, dated
1.3.2007, for the grant of permits under the non-subsidy scheme, is that the applicant should be a resident of Chennai Metropolitan area. It is only
for permits under the subsidy scheme that several qualifications are prescribed. The amendments brought forth to G.O.Ms. No. 322, under
G.O.Ms.Nos.1645 and 96, are also only with reference to the applications under the subsidy scheme. When the petitioners have filed applications
only in pursuance of these Government Orders, it may not be open to them now to contend that the applications of persons who already hold a
permit, should be rejected. In other words, the petitioners cannot now compel the respondents to reject any application on the basis of a
qualification or disqualification not prescribed in G.O.Ms.Nos.322 or 1645 or 96.
Despite the above hurdle, I am of the considered view that it is still open to the Government to fine tune G.O.Ms.Nos.322, 1645 and 96, so as
to achieve the purpose for which the Government restricted the number of permits to be issued under both the schemes. It is seen from paragraph-
3 of G.O.Ms. No. 1099, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 7.12.2005 that the decision to lift the ban on issue of fresh Auto rickshaw
permits, was taken only to enable ""owner-cum-driver applicants"" to get permits. The ban was in force from 1998 and the very purpose of lifting
the same was stated to be to provide opportunity to the owners-cum-drivers. This G.O.Ms. No. 1099, was rescinded by G.O.Ms. No. 322,
dated 1.3.2007. But even then, the purpose stated in G.O.Ms. No. 1099, was not obliterated by the subsequent order. Paragraph No. 1 of
G.O.Ms. No. 322, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 1.3.2007, clearly indicates that the ban on issue of fresh permits, that was in force
from 1998 till 2005, was lifted for the purpose of providing permits to unemployed youth. By this G.O.Ms. No. 322, 5,000 permits were decided
to be issued under the subsidy scheme and 5,000 permits were decided to be issued under the non-subsidy scheme for general category of
persons. But this number got changed with G.O.Ms.Nos.1645 and 96, to 2,500 under the subsidy scheme and 7,500 under the non-subsidy
scheme. Therefore, the chances of unemployed youth or owners-cum-drivers to get permits, got substantially reduced, by virtue of
G.O.Ms.Nos.1645 and 96. This has actually led the Association of Drivers to come up with this batch of writ petitions.
Therefore, taking into account the fact that the very ban order was lifted after a period of 7 years (1998 to 2005), only with the avowed object
of providing permits to owners-cum-drivers and to unemployed youth and also taking into consideration the grievance of the petitioners, I am of
the considered view that the Transport Authorities may have to scrutinise the applications of all persons who are selected in the draw of lots and
reject the applications of those who already hold a permit either in their name or in the name of any member of their family. The Transport
Authorities have the power to do this by virtue of Section 80(2) of the Act. To enable the Transport Authorities to do this, the Government may
have to issue suitable amendments to Annexure-II to G.O.Ms. No. 322, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 1.3.2007. That the
Government has power to issue such directions by way of amendment, cannot be disputed since persons whose applications are selected in the
draw of lots, are yet to acquire a vested right.
In view of the above, all the writ petitions are disposed of on the following lines:
(i) The random selection method adopted by the respondents for selecting candidates for the grant of permits, is perfectly justified and legally valid.
Therefore, the challenge to the same, made by the petitioners, is rejected.
(ii) The applications of persons who are successful in the draw of lots, may now be taken up and scrutinised by the concerned Regional Transport
Authorities under the provisions of the Statute and the Rules including Rules 166 and 167 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules.
(iii) Before such scrutiny by the Regional Transport Authorities, the Government may consider, for the grant of permits under the non-subsidy
scheme, the imposition of such additional conditions, as would fulfil the object for which the ban order was lifted by the Government. It will be
open to the Government to prescribe that the applications of those who already own permits either in their names or in the names of any of their
family members, may be rejected. It will also be open to the Government to prescribe any other condition that would prevent financiers and
economically well placed persons from getting permit by the sheer fortuitous circumstance of getting selected in the draw of lots.
All the writ petitions are disposed of on the above lines. No costs. The interim orders passed earlier shall stand vacated and all the
miscellaneous petitions are closed.