ORDER

ANITA SUMANTH, J.

1. The petitioner, the Madurai Omni Bus Owners Welfare Association, challenges Notification dated 28.11.2014 (in short 'impugned Notification') issued by the District Collector placing restrictions on the movement of omni buses in and around Madurai City and in the sub-urban areas of Madurai.

2. The submissions of Mr. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are that the petitioner is a registered society formed for the welfare of omni bus owners. Initially, all buses were being operated from the Periyar Bus stand and thereafter, post setting up of a new bus stand exclusively for omni buses at Maatuthavani, the buses are being operated from the latter stand alone. However, the buses were being permitted to enter into the city with certain restrictions imposed on the time of entry and exit, thus enabling them to pick and set down/drop passengers at certain points within the city before finally concluding their journey at the bus stand.

3. The impugned Notification prohibits the entry of the omni buses into the city and they are thus unable to pick and drop the passengers from designated points within the city causing the passengers untold inconvenience and adversely affecting the petitioners' business interests as well. According to the petitioner, all its members hold valid All-India permits issued by the Transport authority and the restriction imposed under the impugned Notification impinges upon the permits held by them.

4. The petitioner points out that the passengers intend to visit Temples, hotels and other destinations within the city and it is thus imperative that the omni buses are permitted to provide services that would enable free movement of the passengers intra-city. The restrictions placed by virtue of the impugned Notification interferes with the rights of the members of the petitioner association in terms of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and cannot be construed as a reasonable restriction upon the carriage of its business. In fact, the State is permitting goods carriers to enter the city of Madurai between the hours of 10.00 p.m., and 06.00 a.m., and the restriction imposed in this regard upon the petitioner is thus, also discriminatory.

5. The petitioner relies upon a decision of the Division Bench at the Principal Seat of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association, rep., by President L.T. Chellasamy, No. 11/5, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600008 v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development (U.D.3.1.) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 and Others 2004 Writ LR 3 : LNIND 2003 MAD 2069. The Bench concludes in the aforesaid case, that the restrictions imposed upon Omni buses plying to and from Chennai city are unreasonable to the extent to which they prevent the omni buses for entering into the city to facilitate pick and drop of the passengers. In concluding so, the Division Bench has taken into account the inconvenience caused to the passengers and has quashed the GO, permitting the omni buses to enter Chennai city, making it clear however, that the buses shall not be permanently parked on the road sides.

6. A legal argument put forth by the petitioner is that the All-India permit held by the members permits the vehicles to ply in the entire State of Tamil Nadu except prohibited areas. Thus, the restriction imposed by the impugned Notification is clearly contrary to the permit condition itself. The petitioner compares the permits issued by the Respondent authority to those issued by the State Transport Authority in Arunachal Pradesh which contain a condition to the effect that the Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month, vary the conditions of the permit or attach to the permit further conditions, to point out that such a condition does not find place in the former permit, issued by Tamil Nadu. Thus, according to them, there is no statutory autho