1. The grievance ventilated by the various petitioners herein are with respect to the refusal to grant contract carriage permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) and the denial of consideration of requests made for change of parking place with respect to permits already issued.

2. The above batch of Writ Petitions were posted together, since the issue of refusal to grant contract carriage permits to autorickshaws were many a time raised before this Court. This Court had, on many occasions, found that unless the Government restricts the number of permits to be issued, within an area by way of a notification, under S.74(3)(a) of the Act, it is not permissible for the Regional Transport Officer or the Regional Transport Authority to impose restrictions by themselves. The Government sought to draw a distinction, in so far as, such judgments curtailed the discretion granted to the authority constituted under the enactment.

3. It is not disputed that this Court has in recent times; repeatedly and consistently, spoken about such restriction not being permissible unless by way of a notification as is indicated in Exhibit P3 judgment produced in W.P.(C).No.3998 of 2014. That is a judgment in W.P.(C).No.19817 of 2013 dated 25.9.2013, wherein it was held so:

“2. In fact, a learned Single Judge of this Court had considered the very same issue with respect to an order passed by the Secretary, R.T.A, Malappuram itself in W.P.(C).No.13912 of 2013. The contention that in the absence of a notification under S.74(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is not permissible for the Regional Transport Officer or the RTA to impose restrictions in issuing permits in the Municipal area was accepted by the Court. While reserving the right of the Government to issue a notification bringing in such restriction, the reasons stated by the R.T.A. for refusal of grant of permit was found to be extraneous, especially since a notification in that respect was absent. It was categorically held that the scheme of the Act and the provisions thereunder interdict any such restriction, which would in fact result in infringing the fundamental rights of the persons residing in the area.

In the light of the binding precedent, Exhibit P5 order is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders issuing the permit as applied for, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs”.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the various petitioners would urge that the matter is no longer res integra and in the teeth of such binding precedent, seek that the Writ Petitions be allowed, issuing appropriate directions to the authority under the Act to make and issue the grant and also permit change of parking places as requested.

5. The learned Government Pleader, however, would contend that an unlimited mandate to grant contract carriage permits would in fact impede public interest and it is on consideration of over-crowding of Municipal areas, as also the congestion caused by indiscriminate parking of autorickshaws, that, such restrictions were imposed by the Regional Transport Authorities, limiting the issue of contract carriage permits.

6. This Court was convinced that, prima facie the provision on which and the principle which weighed with this Court in directing such grant, in the absence of a notification under S.74(3)(a) of the Act; needed a fresh look. This Court appointed Sri. P. Deepak as Amicus Curiae. This Court has heard the various counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Amicus Curiae.

7. Section 74(3)(a) of the Act provides for a restriction in the number of contract carriages, operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs and also mandates such restriction to be brought in by the State Government, by notification and as directed by the Central Government.