SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner Union. Also heard U. Rajbongshi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 6. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 7. None appears for the respondent No. 8.

2. The petitioner is a registered trade union of Auto Tempo Drivers operating in Bongaigaon. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bongaigaon, permitting the respondent No. 8 to ply his auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. AS-26C-2303 from Chapaguri Point to Ganeshmandir via Paglastan-New Bongaigaon Railway Station-Bhowlaguri-St. Albert School-Chungapota-Ganeshmandir and back, the instant writ petition has been filed primarily alleging that the said order contradicts the policy decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority at Bongaigaon on 05.09.2013 whereby it was decided not to allow the auto rickshaw of Chirang district to enter into Bongaigaon district due to over-crowding of auto rickshaws in Bongaigaon.

3. It appears that earlier the respondent No.8 had approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 4529 of 2014 being aggrieved by the decision taken on 05.09.2013 restraining the auto rickshaws of Chirang district from entering Bongaigaon. By the order dated 09.12.2014 this Court had disposed of WP (C) No. 4529 of 2014 on the basis of a consensus evolved between the parties thereto, directing the Regional Transport Authority, Bongaigaon district to consider the application of the respondent No.8 (writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 4529 of 2014) and pass appropriate speaking orders within four weeks of receipt of intimation of the order. It appears that acting in compliance with the order dated 09.12.2014 the Regional Transport Authority, Bongaigaon held a meeting on 22.12.2014 wherein the decision impugned in this writ proceeding to permit the respondent No.8 to ply his auto rickshaw in the aforementioned route was taken.

4. It is also the grievance of the writ petitioner herein that the impugned decision taken on 22.12.2014 besides being in contravention of the provision of Section 71(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has also got the potential to open flood gates in as much as many such application from persons similarly situated auto drivers are likely to approach the RTA with similar requests. In the event such similar applications are made, then there is a strong possibility that treating the order dated 22.12.2014 as a precedent, such applications would also be given similar treatment thereby adding to the traffic congestion problem in Bongaigaon Town, which was the primary reason leading to adopting the policy decision on 05.09.2013.

5. Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the apprehension expressed by his clients is genuine and realistic and if such flood gates are opened then it would cause serious problem not only for the commuter in Bongaigaon but would also adversely effect the livelihood of the members of the petitioner Union.

6. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel representing respondent No.7, submits that it is the prerogative of the Regional Transport Authority to take a decision as regards the route which should be followed by a particular traffic entity keeping in mind the ground realities. The order dated 09.12.2014 was only a direction passed by this Court to dispose of the requests made by the respondent No.8 and accordingly the order dated 22.12.2014 has been passed only in one individual case. As such, there is no basis for the apprehension expressed by the writ petitioner as there is no such move to permit auto rickshaws of other districts to ply within the Town of Bongaigaon in large scale.

7. It is a fact that the Regional Transport Authority is the competent authority to decide as to what traffic route should be permit