JUDGMENT :

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. Petitioners, 18 in number, are the owners of the passenger autorikshaws classified as three wheeled vehicle. For plying as a taxi, had obtained the permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Ext.P1 whereby certain restrictions for not plying the vehicles to pick up passenger or park within the Kochi City were imposed. Petitioners moved an application for variation of the terms and conditions of the permit on the ground that there are no designated parking places for parking the autorikshaws so that the passengers can use the facility of the autorikshaws and requested the authorities to change their parking stand. Aforementioned application has been rejected by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Perumbavoor vide order dated 24.11.2021, Ext.P4 on the ground that they had received twenty two applications from the owners for variation of the permit to allow any stand within the Perumbavoor Municipality as parking place. On enquiry, it was found that Perumbavoor Municipal roads are congested and numerous vehicles have been allowed to park and to ply autorikshaws inside the municipality. Perumbavoor Municipality has taken a decision No. 27 in the meeting dated 27.11.2017 that no new permits are allowed for autorikshaws inside the Perumbavoor Municipality.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment Ext.P7 of 2015 that such condition of parking the autorikshaw at designated parking places has been negated on the ground that no such facility was provided. I am afraid the aforementioned arguments would not be tenable for the reason that the judgment is of 2015 and the impugned order in the instant case is of 2021 based upon the decision of the Perumbavoor Municipality dated 27.11.2017 vide decision number 27 which has not been challenged in this Court. Reliance has also been laid to the information received under the RTI vide Ext.P6, wherein a specific question raised in the application seeking information from the Revenue Officer vide communication dated 3.08.2015 replying that municipality had not approved or allotted any stands within the boundaries of the Perumbavoor. The decision of the Municipality has not been assailed in the present writ petition. The permit is of 2014, therefore, there cannot be any change of the condition. An attempt has been made to overcome the decision of the municipality by submitting an application for allocation of different stand with a purpose to enter the municipality of Perumbavoor and ply the vehicle which would increase the congestion in the area and truncate the mobility of the vehicles already permitted and being plied. Thus, I am of the view that until and unless the decision of the municipality is not being challenged, the application has rightly been rejected. The writ petition sans merits accordingly dismissed.

3. While dealing with the writ petition this Court has come across that many autorikshaws being plied in Cochin/Ernakulam and other districts do not follow the traffic rules. They adopt the rule of convenience and not the rules by stopping at their convenience for picking up the passengers midway of the journey and beyond the capacity granted in the permit which results into risk of accident. Not only this, even the transport vehicles like passenger private transport buses plied in the City of Cochin/Ernakulam also perpetually uses the horns in overtaking and while plying on the road. Most of the vehicles are overtaking each other or the other private vehicles risking the life of the passengers on the road and other passengers travelling in other vehicles. Apparently, the buses also looked to be very old. Though the Motor Vehicle Act does not permit the vehicle to be run beyond 15 years there may be a cases where fitness certificates are being issued by the Regional Transport Authority. There has to be a time-line as to till what time the fitness certificate can be issued. In other words, whether it can be permitted beyond 15 yea