ARAWALI TAXI OPERATORS UNION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a Taxi Operators Union challenged one of the conditions attached to the contract carriage permit prohibiting to fit luggage carrier on the roof of the jeep being arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned single Judge dismissed the petition relegating the petitioner to alternate remedy under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) It is well established that High Court has power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an Executive Authority from acting without jurisdiction more particularly, in case where such an action is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment. It is not necessary to tress all the judgments on the point, suffice to refer the decision of Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Mark, reported in (1998) 7 JT (SC) 243 wherein the Court reviewed almost all the cases on the point and reiterated three well established exceptions wherein writ jurisdiction does not operate as bar, inspite of existence of statutory remedy. The Court held, thus (Para 15 of AIR):-

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel that impugned condition No. 4 of the permit restraining the contract carriage permit holders from installing or attaching a luggage carrier on a taxi jeep is illegal being arbitrary, without authority of law, unreasonable and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that such a condition is foreign to the conditions contained in Section 74. Thus, the Transport Authority has acted completely without jurisdiction in attaching such arbitrary condition.