AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner, an autorickshaw owner, is aggrieved by Exhibit P5 order, by which his application for permit in respect of his vehicle KL-10-AM/5526, to ply inside the jurisdiction of Manjeri Municipality was declined. In fact earlier also the writ petitioner was before this Court along with other autorickshaw owners and a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed consideration of the application in accordance with law and also taking into account the contention of the petitioners therein that without a notification issued by the Government no restriction can be imposed on the number of autorickshaws which are allowed to ply inside the jurisdiction of the Municipality. However, Exhibit P5 reveals that despite there being no notification imposing such restriction, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (for short "RTA"), Malappuram declined the permit for the following reasons:
This authority is convinced that by migration to the Municipal area by surrendering the Panchayath Permits. The travelling facility available in this Grama Panchayath will be badly affected along with the heavy traffic problem in this Municipal Area. Further there is no ample parking place in this Municipal area, on the basis of which, the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram has imposed certain restrictions in the grant of A/R permit in the Municipal area. The above said restriction is still existing.
The authority, going by Exhibit P5, was convinced that if the petitioner, who was having a permit to ply the vehicle in the Panchayat area, was allowed to migrate to the Municipal area, then the travelling facility available in the Grama Panchayat would be badly affected. The fact that the large number of autorickshaws already permitted to ply in the Municipal area causing acute traffic problems in the area was also taken note of. The Secretary, RTA relied on the restrictions brought in by the RTA, Malappuram for granting further permits and hence declined the prayer of the petitioner.
In fact, a learned Single Judge of this Court had considered the very same issue with respect to an order passed by the Secretary, RTA, Malappuram itself in W.P.(C). No. 13912 of 2013. The contention that in the absence of a notification u/s 74(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is not permissible for the Regional Transport Officer or the RTA to impose restrictions in issuing permits in the Municipal area was accepted by the Court. While reserving the right of the Government to issue a notification bringing in such restriction, the reasons stated by the RTA for refusal of grant of permit was found to be extraneous, especially since a notification in that respect was absent. It was categorically held that the scheme of the Act and the provisions thereunder interdict any such restriction, which would in fact result in infringing the fundamental rights of the persons residing in the area.
In the light of the binding precedent, Exhibit P5 order is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders issuing the permit as applied for, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.