1. Challenge to condition requiring auto rickshaw permit holders to personally drive the vehicle. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(HP) 1779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Sh. Satpal and others - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondent
CWP No.4893 of 2022
Decided On : 24-12-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. T.S. Bhogal, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. T.S. Bhogal, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General
A mandate requiring auto-rickshaw permit holders to personally drive the vehicle is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, as it fails to provide exceptions for medical incapacitation or death, thus exceeding the scope of 'reasonable restrictions' on the right to trade.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19 - Motor Vehicles Act - Grant of permits for contract carriage (auto rickshaws) - Condition that the permit holder must personally drive the vehicle - Arbitrariness - Requirement for the owner to drive themselves is unsustainable and violates the right to carry on a trade or profession - Restrictions must be reasonable and take into account practical situations such as medical incapacity, physical challenges, or the death of the permit holder (Paras 2, 3).
(B) Reasonable Restrictions - If the objective of the State is to prevent misuse of permits by financially well-off individuals to ensure self-employment, the State may impose a limit on the number of permits issued per applicant rather than mandating personal operation of the vehicle (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a condition imposed by the transport authorities while granting permits for contract carriage (auto rickshaws), which required the owners to drive the vehicles themselves. It was contended that this condition was arbitrary and caused hardship, specifically in instances where owners were suffering from severe illness or were incapacitated, preventing them from plying the vehicle personally while still needing the income for livelihood and medical treatment.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the condition mandating the permit holder to personally drive the vehicle is arbitrary and does not fall under the category of 'reasonable restrictions'. Such a restriction violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, as it fails to account for practical scenarios such as medical incapacitation, physical disability, or the death of the owner, which would leave legal heirs without a means of livelihood.
Issues: Whether the condition requiring the owner of an auto rickshaw to personally drive the vehicle for the grant of a contract carriage permit is legally sustainable and whether it constitutes a reasonable restriction under the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: A condition that ignores practical eventualities—such as the owner becoming physically incapacitated or deceased—is arbitrary and unreasonable. While the State may seek to promote self-employment, it cannot impose a blanket requirement for personal driving that infringes upon the right to earn a livelihood under Article 19 without providing necessary exceptions for incapacitation. Any restriction must be reasonable and not strike at the foundation of Articles 14 and 19.
Result: Petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- motor vehicles
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- disposal upon compliance (Para 6)
-
writ jurisdiction
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued condition arbitrary; State defended as promoting self-employment for unemployed youth. (Para 2 )
3. Condition appears arbitrary; violates Articles 14 and 19; fails to account for incapacitation or death of owner. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Unreasonable restriction on right to livelihood violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19. (Para 3 )
5. Petition disposed of after State issued amended instructions allowing engagement of drivers in specified categories. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Can a permit condition requiring personal driving by the owner be considered a reasonable restriction?
No, such a condition is arbitrary and unreasonable as it does not account for situations like incapacitation or death of the owner. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. What constitutional provisions are violated by a blanket personal driving condition?
Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (right to practice any profession) of the Constitution of India are violated. (Para 3 )
8. What measures did the State adopt to comply with the court's directions?
The State amended its policy to allow permit holders who become medically unfit or die to engage licensed drivers for the auto rickshaw. (Para 4 , 5 )
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:-
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may be allowed and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to strike down and quash the condition requiring the owners of the auto rickshaws to drive the vehicle themselves, as is being imposed by the respondent authorities while granting the permits for contract carriage (auto rickshaws).
2. When this case was listed on 20.05.2025, this Court passed the following order:-
“The moot issue involved in this writ petition is weather the decision of the respondents in insisting that Permit in respect of contract carriage (Auto Rickshaw Permit) shall be granted only in favour of those who not only own the vehicle, but shall also be driving the vehicle themselves is sustainable. As per the petitioners, this condition is arbitrary, for the reason that there are exigencies and occasions which do not enable an owner of the Auto Rickshaw to ply the same himself. One of the owners of the Auto Rickshaw is stated to be suffering from Cancer, who requires money for his treatment and the income can only be generated by him if he engages someone to ply his Auto Rickshaw.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents appended with the petition and submitted that arbitrariness of the act of the respondents can be gauged from the fact that whereas in some of the Permits, a hand written condition has been imposed that the owner shall ride the vehicle himself, whereas, there is no such condition in other Permits.
Learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the reply and Annexure R-1 appended therewith, which is a Notice issued by State Transport Authority and has submitted that the reason, as to why this condition stands imposed, is that the intent of the respondents is to provide self employment to the interested persons who intend to ply Auto Rickshaws.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that imposition of condition that the owner of the Auto Rickshaw shall have to drive the same, itself appears to be arbitrary. This is for the reason that there can be more than one eventuality which may lead to a situation, whereas the owner of the Auto Rickshaw may not be in a position to drive the vehicle himself. For example, a person who has been given the Permit to purchase the Auto Rickshaw with the condition that he shall have to drive the same himself, if he meets with an accident which renders him incapacitated to thereafter ply the Auto Rickshaw, cannot engage someone else to ply the same and earn livelihood.
Faced with this situation, learned Additional Advocate General submits that as the annexure appended with the reply relates to the year 1990, he may be granted some time to discuss the matter with the Authorities concerned, so that in case it is so needed, something is done to espouse the grievance of the petitioners. On his request, the matter is ordered to be listed after four weeks.
Let, affidavit of respondent No.1 be filed, as to how notice dated 07.08.1990 is justified in law and what measures the State intends to take to ensure that there is no arbitrary condition imposed while issuing contract carriage for the plying of the Auto Rickshaw. In the meanwhile, the petitioners to ensure that rejoinder to the reply is on record.”
3. This was followed by the passing of the following order by this Court on 16.09.2025:-
“Though the affidavit filed by the respondents is not on record, however, learned Additional Advocate General has made available a copy thereof for the perusal of the Court. Having perused the content of this affidavit dated 04.09.2025, the Court is not satisfied with the same. Prima facie, this Court is of the considered view that the conditions which are being imposed by the respondents, not only violate Article 19 of the Constitu
