Allahabad High Court Quashes 'Permanent Resident' Rule for E-Rickshaw Registration in Lucknow, Cites Violation of Fundamental Rights

Lucknow, U.P. – The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has struck down a directive by the transport authorities that restricted the registration of new E-rickshaws to permanent residents of Lucknow. A division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Brij Raj Singh held the rule to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and a clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court quashed the contentious part of the order dated February 5, 2025, issued by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO), Lucknow, emphasizing that administrative inconvenience cannot be a ground to curtail the right to livelihood.

Background of the Case

The High Court was hearing a batch of four writ petitions, led by Deepak Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. , challenging the ARTO's order. The order imposed two key restrictions on the registration of new E-rickshaws and E-autos: 1. Registration would not be granted to a person who already owns a registered E-rickshaw. 2. New registrations would only be granted to individuals who are permanent residents of Lucknow.

The petitioners specifically challenged the second condition, arguing that it unfairly prevented them from earning their livelihood in the state capital simply because they resided in nearby areas.

Arguments Presented

State's Justification: The State-respondents, in their counter-affidavit, defended the restriction on grounds of administrative difficulty. They argued that over 70% of E-rickshaw owners in Lucknow operate without valid fitness certificates, posing a threat to public safety. The authorities claimed that when owners are not permanent residents and live in rented accommodations, it becomes "very difficult to serve any Notice to them relating to end of Fitness or other" issues, as they often move without updating their address.

Petitioners' Contention: The petitioners argued that the residency requirement was an unreasonable classification that infringed upon their fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g). They contended that the rule was discriminatory and violated the right to equality under Article 14.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court firmly rejected the state's rationale, deeming it legally baseless and arbitrary. The bench observed that depriving individuals of the right to register an E-rickshaw based on their place of residence is an unconstitutional form of discrimination.

In its judgment, the Court stated: > "The rationale that has been provided by the authorities for depriving persons, who are not residing in Lucknow but are carrying on business in Lucknow, from getting a registration of E-rickshaw is without any basis in law and is clearly a violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Any discrimination that is done without having a reasonable classification cannot be countenanced by this Court..."

The bench suggested that the authorities could adopt alternative, non-discriminatory measures to regulate the number of E-rickshaws and ensure compliance. These include: - Restricting the total number of registration certificates issued in a particular year. - Taking stricter action, such as impounding vehicles that lack valid fitness certificates.

The Court also highlighted the socio-economic role of Lucknow as the state capital, which attracts people from all over Uttar Pradesh seeking to earn a living. The judgment eloquently noted:

> "Lucknow being the capital city of the State of Uttar Pradesh results in the confluence of the people from villages in all parts of Uttar Pradesh and encourages people to come to the city to earn their livelihood. A restriction such as the one that has been provided for in the impugned order would act as a hindrance to the same. In fact, the authorities should allow Lucknow to be a melting pot, where people of diverse castes, religions and from different strata of society are allowed to come and work so as to encourage them to participate in the prosperity of the capital city."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed all four writ petitions and quashed the part of the ARTO's order that mandated permanent residency for E-rickshaw registration.

This landmark decision reaffirms the principle that administrative convenience cannot override fundamental rights. It opens the doors for individuals from areas surrounding Lucknow and other parts of Uttar Pradesh to legally register and operate E-rickshaws in the city, securing their right to livelihood. The ruling sets a precedent against creating arbitrary entry barriers based on residency for economic activities.