L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE 1st petitioner is the Association of A. P. Motor Vehicles Dealers. Petitioners 2 to 8 are the dealers of Motor vehicles, particularly, in three wheelers, having their business at Hyderabad. Petitioners 9 to 15 are the employees of the dealers, who have figured as petitioners 2 to 8. They challenge the order of the 2nd respondent in G. O. Ms. No. 137, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR-II) Department dated 6-08-2002, as being violative of Articles 14, 19 (l) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Through the impugned order, the 2nd respondent restricted the number of three wheeled contract carriages at Hyderabad to 68,467 as on 5-9- 2002 and directed the Regional Transport authority, Hyderabad, 4th respondent, to restrict the number of three wheeled contract carriages to that number. It was fur ther directed that no new permit shall be granted to such vehicles from 6-8-2002 onwards. Replacement of the existing three wheeled contract carriages was permitted by lpg driven three wheeled contract carriages.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that it shall be competent to the 2nd respondent to restrict the number of vehicles of any category only when it is authorised on the basis of a statutory notification issued by the 1st respondent, in exercise of its powers under S. 74 (3) (a) of the Act. According to them, the notification dated 12-9-1990 issued by the 1st respondent is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 74 (3) (a) of the Act and, as such, the notification as well as the impugned order, issued on the basis of the same, are illegal and void. The petitioners contend that respondents 1 and 2 are empowered to restrict the number of vehicles under Section 74 (3) (a) of the Act only in respect of City routes and the restriction imposed through the impugned order on the area as distinguished from routes cannot be sustained. It is also their case that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice while issuing the impugned order and that the hard decision crippling the business of the petitioners and affecting livelihood of several unemployed persons was totally unwarranted. The petitioners have also raised certain contentions as regards delimitation of Hyderabad district. According to them, the three wheeled contract carriages are permitted to operate in a radius of 60 Kms. and in that view of the matter, the vehicles registered in the neighbouring Ranga Reddy district cannot be prevented from entering the hyderabad city.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 2 to 10 have filed a common counter-affidavit. It is their case that way back in the year 1990, the 1st respondent issued notification under Section 74 (3) (a)of the Act directing the State Government as well as the State and Regional Transport authorities, to limit the number of contract carriages in the cities of Hyderabad, visakhapatnam and Vijayawada. Taking into account the enormous growth of the three wheelers in the city of Hyderabad, and the resultant traffic congestion and atmospheric pollution, the impugned G. O. , has been issued in the public interest. The respondents contend that since the relevant provisions as regards the radius within which the three wheeled contract carriages can operate, stipulate only maximum limit, necessary measures have been taken to restrict the entry of three wheeled contract carriages registered in the Ranga Reddy district into hyderabad city. The respondents State that the notification issued by the 1st respondent is strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 74 (3){a) of the Act and the consequential notification issued by the 1st respondent i. e. , the impugned order, conforms to the notification as well as the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. As regards the violation of principles of natural justice, it is stated that though the Act does no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document