K VIJAY KUMAR Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the question involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) These writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the amendment to Rule 2 of the definition of Contract Carriage under Rule (la) Sleeper Bus and (1b) Sleeper Coach in A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 insofar as it relates to imposition of restriction viz., by an owner organisation whose fleet exceed 2000 and with a holder of permit vide G.O. Ms. No. 134 Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.II) Department dated 14-6-1999 as inconsistent to Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ultra vires, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and also contrary to the provisions of the M.V. Rules, 1988 and opposed to basic principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to register the petitioners' vehicle as Sleeper Coach as per Section 39 to 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and permit the petitioner to operate the said motor vehicle, as Sleeper Coach.

(3.) The petitioners who purchased motor vehicles for valuable consideration and got the body built as a Sleeper Coach with a seating capacity of 20+1 and made an application in form No.20 to the respondent for registration of the said vehicle under the provisions of Sections 39 to 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act,, 1988 to operate as Contract Carriage, but the said application was refused on the ground that as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the APMV Rules, a owner or the organisation whose fleet exceeds 2000 can own a Sleeper Coach and there is no evidence to the effect that the petitioners own a fleet exceeding 2000.