SHOUKATHALI S/O. AVARAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court for quashing Ext.P6, an order passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, inter alia rejecting the application of the petitioners for variation of halting place in the municipal area. According to the petitioners, in the absence of a notification under Section 74(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it is not possible for the Regional Transport Officer to impose restrictions in issuing permits in the municipal area. The reasons stated for such rejection, according to the petitioners, is not valid as the Regional Transport Authority had observed that permits cannot be varied on account of non-availability of parking place in the municipal area. It is further observed that the applicants are residents of municipal area and none of them have availed any autorikshaw by any self employment scheme of the Government. The respondent also observed that the applications have been filed only to migrate to municipal area by changing the halting place in the Panchayath.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent, inter alia supporting the view taken in Ext.P6. In the counter affidavit also, it is admitted that there is no notification under Section 74(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. But the intention of the authority is only to restrict the inflow of majority of autorikshaws to town limits which deprives travelling facility to rural public as well as to check the suspected trafficking of permits among the permit holders.

(3.) THE respondent being a statutory authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, is bound to act in terms of the statutory provisions and therefore if an order is passed overlooking the provisions of the statute, it will definitely amount to an illegal order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P6 is an order passed without jurisdiction as even according to the respondent no notification under Section 74(3)(a) has been made applicable in the case.