SCA/30790/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30790 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= PANCHNATH AUTO PRIVATE LTD THRO' MANISH VIRAMGAMA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RAMKRISHNA B DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR.LR PUJARI AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 28/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Mr.Pujari learned A.G.P. waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. With the consent of the learned advocates, appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 2. The case of the petitioner appears to be that SCA/30790/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT the petitioner is manufacturing Rickshaw having capacity of 5+1 passengers and also other rickshaws. Earlier, it was diesel rickshaws and at that time when the permission was not granted for registration, Special Civil Application No.9016 of 2004 was preferred and in the said petition, on 31.08.2004, the declaration was made that the matter shall be considered for grant of permission and, therefore, the petition was withdrawn. It appears that thereafter, the case of the petitioner is that now it is manufacturing CNG rickshaws and the similar application was made for plying such CNG rickshaws in the city limits. However, vide order dated 19.12.2007 (Annexure F) such permission is declined by the RTO authority and it is under these circumstances, the present petition. 3. Heard Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the State authorities. 4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that merely because the petitioner filed earlier petition, the permission is declined. It is also contended that it is not open to the RTO authority to decline permission of auto rickshaw having 5+1 capacity in the Municipal Corporation, on the ground which are mentioned in the order. The action is arbitrary and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 5. Whereas, on behalf of the RTO authority, it is SCA/30790/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT the contention of the learned A.G.P. that, now, the Corporation has provided city bus facilities and, there are heavy traffic within the Corporation limits. Therefore, the permission was not granted. He submitted that if it is so directed, the authority will reconsider the matter. 6. It appears that the petitioner is the manufacturer of the vehicle and, therefore, as such there is no application made by the petitioner to get the registration of the vehicle which has been declined. If the vehicle owner applies for registration and such permission is declined, it may be an independent cause for such owner of the vehicle to be agitated in the appropriate proceedings. 7. However, it appears that as the petitioner is manufacturing the vehicle and the RTO authority has not declined the permission on the aforesaid ground. If the permission is declined as if the policy decision is taken and as the question may be affecting to large number of auto rickshaws which may be utilised by the residents of the area, the matter deserves to be considered from that angle. 8. Perusal of the order passed by the RTO authority shows that the ground for declining the permission is for the availability of the city bus services by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation and there will be a traffic problem, if such permission is granted. Both the grounds, if considered independently, then also would not be sufficient to decline the permission SCA/30790/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT inasmuch as there are no facts and figures available about the number of passengers who may be utilising the bus services and whether the bus services are sufficient to meet with the requirement of the general public for transportation in the Corporation limit or not. Further, merely because city bus services are available at certain points, it would not be valid ground for the RTO authority to decline permission to any rickshaw owner who is desirous to ply the rickshaw for rendering facilities to the general public. Further, there is no policy decision to prohibit auto rickshaws in the limits of Municipal Corporation but the only decision is to prohibit entry of the auto rickshaw exceeding 3+1 capacity. If auto rickshaws having upto 3+1 can be permitted to enter the Corporation limits for transportation, there would be no earthly reason on the part of the RTO authority to decline auto rickshaw having capacity of 5+1. Therefore, such ground can be said as ex facie arbitrary. 9. As the permission has not been declined on the ground that the vehicle is having CNG facility, the said aspect is not required to be considered. 10. It deserves to be recorded that in the matter of permitting plying of rickshaw within the Corporation limit, it would be required for the authority to take into consideration the general requirements of the public and to encourage the transportation facility to the residents of the area, may be through the rickshaw having capacity of 3+1, seats and less than SCA/30790/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT 3+1 or exceeding 3+1 which in the present case, is 5+1. Even otherwise also at every point, the city bus facility may not be available and may not in any case meet with the requirement of the residents of the area to have the transportation facility. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid aspects, it is required for the RTO authority to consider the matter and to take appropriate decision. 11. As observed earlier, the decision is taken in an arbitrary manner to decline permission, the same cannot be sustained. It will be required for the RTO authority to reconsider the matter keeping in view the observations made by this Court hereinabove and to grant permission of plying the rickshaw having capacity of 5+1. 12. In view of the above, the impugned decision (Annexure F) is quashed and set aside with the direction that the respondent – RTO authority shall consider the matter in light of the observations made hereinabove for grant of permission for plying of auto rickshaw having capacity of 5+1 in the Municipal Corporation area as and when such permission is applied and in accordance with law. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Direct service. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) Hitesh