Karnataka High Court
Mr Deena Dayalan V vs State Of Karnataka on 7 September, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:32244
WP No. 3036 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 3036 OF 2022 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. DEENA DAYALAN V.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O MR. VIJAYA KUMAR,
NO.11, SOUTH STREET,
Y.G. PALYA, AUSTIN TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
2 . MR. ELANGO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O MR. KUMAR,
NO.100/1,
SEPPINGS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally [BY SRI. MOHAMMED DASTAGIR, ADVOCATE (PH)]
signed by
GURURAJ D
Location: AND:
High Court
of
Karnataka
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
AND ROAD SAFETY,
TTMC BUILDING,
SHANTHINAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:32244
WP No. 3036 of 2022
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3 . REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
BENGALURU URBAN,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
TTMC COMPLEX,
JAYANAGAR, 4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
4 . ADDITIONAL SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
RTA BENGALURU URBAN,
AR PERMITS, WILSON GARDEN,
K. H. DOUBLE ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA., (PH)]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 12 OF THE KMV RULES ARE
NOT APPLICABLE TO DRIVERS OF AUTO RICKSHAW CABS IN
VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MUKUND
DEVANGAN'S CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE ADVISORY ISSUED
BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D,
CONSEQUENTLY OR OTHERWISE, DECLARE THAT CONDITION
NO.7 IN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.03.2018 PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-E IS ULTRA-VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF THE MV
ACT, 1988, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF
MUKUND DEVANGAN AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.07.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:32244
WP No. 3036 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the provisions of Rule 12 of the KMV Rules are not applicable to drivers of auto rickshaw cabs in view of the judgment in the case of Mukund Devangan's case and in view of the advisory issued by the Central Government, produced as Annexure-D.
(b) Consequently or otherwise, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that condition no.7 in the Notification dated: 26.03.2018 produced as Annexure-E is ultra-vires that provisions of the MV Act, 1988, in view of the judgment in the case of Mukund Devangan.
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent no.2 to withdraw the illegal press statement dated: 14-12-2022 issued by Respondent no.2 & produced as Annexure-F;
(d) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the identically worded endorsements bearing no.¥Áæ.¸Á.C./DgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁ¸Á¤/ªÉʪÀ/21-22, dated: 29-10-2021 and 11-11-2021, issued by Respondent No.4 and produced as Annexures-C1 and C2 respectively;
(e) Consequently or otherwise, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos.
3 and 4 to issue auto rickshaw permits to the petitioners as per the applications produced as Annexures-B1 and B2;
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022
(f) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to complete the process of issuance of the permits as per prayer (e) above as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a time limit as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and
(g) Grant such other relief deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Sri Mohammad Dastagir, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners herein were holders of driving licence to drive light motor vehicle ('LMV' for short), with intention to obtain auto rickshaw cab permit for BBMP limits, on 28.10.2021, they filed applications in Form KMV-36 as per Annexures-B1 and B2 before RTO, Shantinagar.
3. However, on illegal reason that applicants did not have driving licence to drive auto rickshaw cab mandated by notification dated 14.12.2020 issued by respondent no.2 based on erroneous interpretation of reference of ratio in decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1, to larger bench in case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 Rambha Devi and others2, rejected petitioners' applications on 29.10.2021 and 11.11.2021 by issuing endorsements at Annexures-C1 and C2 respectively.
4. Said rejection would not be in consonance with Advisory issued by Central Government on 16.04.2018 at Annexure-D in terms of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mukund Dewangan's case (supra). It was submitted that as per law laid down, LMV was a genus of vehicles with species such as transport, non-transport etc. It was submitted that auto rickshaw cab would fall under transport category. It was further submitted that after passing of judgment in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra), authorities of transport department in State were following Central Government Advisory and stopped entering drivers' badge number in driving licence of auto rickshaw cab.
5. But, all of a sudden and that too merely by issuing press statement dated 14.12.2020 at Annexure-F, respondent no.2, continued entering drivers' badge number in driving licence of auto rickshaw cab, which would be illegal. It was 2 (2023) 4 SCC 723 -6- NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 submitted that when Apex Court had referred to relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, Rules etc., and held that any person holding driving licence to drive LMV would be authorized to drive auto rickshaw cab, even without having drivers' badge, respondents could not have brought about change in law by mere press statement. It was submitted that Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 ('KMV Rules' for short) would be subordinate legislation and couldn't override interpretation of parent Act by Apex Court.
6. It was submitted that High Court of Orissa in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Raisa Bibi and others3, had held that wearing of badge on uniform was only with intention of identifying drivers. And as no badges were issued physically in Karnataka for more than 40 years, said requirement was vestigious, if not wholly irrelevant. Such being case, mere entering of badge number in driving licence would be an empty formality. It was submitted that State Government had in fact sought clarification from Central Government about legal position under Rule 12 of KMV Rules, as per correspondence dated 02.09.2021 at Annexure-G. 3 1998 SCC OnLine Ori 106 -7- NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022
7. It was therefore contended that issuance of press statement before seeking clarification from Central Government was both erroneous and arbitrary, as it would amount to placing 'cart before horse'.
8. It was further submitted that in meanwhile State Government had issued notification dated 26.03.2018 at Annexure-E enhancing quota of permits for auto rickshaw cabs in BBMP limits, Bengaluru. It was also contended that insistence for entering of drivers badge number after declaration of law by Hon'ble Supreme Court would amount to questioning its correctness and would be contumacious.
9. Since impugned requirement of entering drivers' badge number in auto rickshaw cab permit would restrict petitioners right to obtain permit illegally and arbitrarily, petitioners were entitled for relief sought for declaring condition no.7 in Annexure-E as deemed complied if applicant was holding licence to drive LMV as held in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra) and consequently quash endorsements at Annexure-C1 and C2.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022
10. On other hand, Shri G.M.Chandrashekar, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) opposed writ petition and sought for its dismissal. Referring to statement of objections filed, it was submitted that writ petition was not tenable and petitioners were not entitled for any reliefs.
11. It was submitted that provisions made under Rule 12 of KMV Rules for issuing drivers badge to drive a stage carriage or contract carriage was not subject matter and therefore not considered in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra).
12. Apart from same, Section 3(1) of MV Act. mandates that only person holding valid and effective driving licence to drive particular class of vehicle would be authorized to drive it in public place. Further, Section 4(2) stipulates that such person should be above age of 20 years, while Section 7(1) requires that only person, who has held learners licence to drive transport vehicle or a driving licence to drive LMV for at least one year to be eligible for grant of driving licence in respect of transport vehicle. Further, Section 14(2) restriction on period of validity of licence to drive transport vehicle to only three years was also not considered. Therefore, State Government sought -9- NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 clarification by letter dated: 25.10.2019 from Central Government (MORTH), but no reply was received.
13. Under above circumstances, respondents sought to enforce existing KMV Rules and hence same could not be faulted. It was further submitted that in Rambha Devi and Ors. (supra), there was reference to larger Bench for examination of ratio in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra). Therefore, pending such reference, no relief could be granted to petitioners.
14. It is respectfully submitted that Central Government has recently issued Motor Vehicles Aggregator Guidelines, 2020, whereunder, holding badge along with DL is made mandatory for drivers attached to aggregator company. It was submitted that since Section 28 (2) (d) of MV Act empowered State Government to frame Rules regarding badges and uniform to be worn by drivers of Transport Vehicles, fees to be paid in respect of badges etc., action by respondent-authorities for implementing Rule 12 of KMV Rules, cannot be found fault with. It was submitted that merely on ground that metal badges were
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 not issued would not render said Rule otiose and petitioners would be bound by them.
15. Even, Rule 8 (1) (a) of Karnataka, On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregator Rules, 2016, requires drivers' badge along with licence to drive LMV (transport). It was also submitted that Form-7 [Rule 16 (1) & (2)] of Central Motor Vehicle Rules require entering drivers' badge, date of issue and issuing authority therein. Even in Form-54 [Rule 150 (1) & (2)] i.e. accident information report, there was requirement of mentioning badge number in column no.7 (d). On above mentioned grounds, learned counsel sought for dismissal of writ petitions.
16. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition records.
17. From above submission, main grievance of petitioners is bar against issuance of auto rickshaw permits within BBMP limits to persons not holding driver's badge number in respect of transport vehicles. While, petitioners contend that in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra) holding drivers' licence to drive LMV would be
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 sufficient in case of transport vehicles also of gross vehicle weight of less than 7500 kgs. Therefore, condition/insistence of above requirement would be arbitrary and illegal, regardless of reference for consideration of ratio in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra) to larger Bench; respondents contend that in view of Rule 12 of KMV Rules, framed by State Government under power available in terms of Section 28 (2)(d) of MV Act, and non-consideration of requirement of said Rule 12, in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra), as also due to pendency of reference thereagainst before larger Bench, action of respondents in giving effect to statutory provisions cannot be assailed as arbitrary or illegal etc.
18. Insofar as prayer no.(a), declaration sought would be pending reference to larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though, in para no.7 of Rambha Devi's case (supra), counsel for insurance companies conceded for payment of compensation by following decision in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra) until reference is answered, whether same would be only insofar as compensation is concerned or any declaration herein would be subject to final outcome of reference, would require consideration.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022
19. In prayer (b), declaration about condition no.7 in notification dated 26.03.2018, at Annexure-E as ultra vires, provisions of MV Act is sought; in prayer (c) mandamus directing withdrawal of press statement dated 14.12.2020 at Annexure-F issued by respondent no.2 is sought; Prayer (d) is consequential in nature for setting aside endorsements at Annexures-C1 and C2. While prayers (e) and (f) are for consequential directions for consideration of petitioner's applications for issuance of auto rickshaw cab permits within time frame. Said prayers being analogous are considered together.
20. Perusal of Rule 12 of KMV Rules, would reveal that sub-rule (1) mandates that only a person holding drivers' badge would be authorised to drive stage carriage or contract carriage vehicle. It also prescribes different shapes of badges for auto rickshaw cab and driver of other vehicles, procedure for obtaining badge, replacement etc. Power to frame rules in respect of drivers' badge would be traced to Section 28(2)(d) of MV Act.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022
21. Relief sought in writ petition is in light of interpretation of relevant provisions of MV Act by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Devangan's case (supra). Points for reference in said decision were :
"3. Following questions have been referred for decision to the larger Bench:
1. What is the meaning to be given to the definition of "light motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the MV Act? Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it?
2. Whether "transport vehicle" and "omnibus" the "gross vehicle weight" of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a "light motor vehicle"
and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a licence to drive the class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the "gross vehicle weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg?
3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle"
and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" by "transport vehicle"? Whether insertion of expression "transport vehicle" under Section 10(2)(e) is related to said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act?
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022
4. What is the effect of amendment of Form 4 as to the operation of the provisions contained in Section 10 as amended in the year 1994 and whether the procedure to obtain the driving licence for transport vehicle of the class of "light motor vehicle" has been changed?"
22. Above questions were answered as follows:
"60.1. "Light motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.
60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.
60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in Section 10(2)(e), "medium passenger motor vehicle" in Section 10(2)(f), "heavy goods vehicle" in Section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in Section 10(2)(h) with expression "transport vehicle" as substituted in Section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of Section 10(2)(d) and Section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
23. Specific declaration in para no.60.4 above is that if a driver is holding licence to drive LMV, he would be authorised to drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. It is also specifically held that there was no change in procedure for obtaining driving licence for transport vehicles in class of LMV would render requirement of transport endorsement in respect of auto rickshaw cab, which is a class of LMV would be contrary to MV Act and null and void. Consequently, all subordinate legislation insisting upon transport endorsement would require to be read up minus such insistence. When separate class of transport vehicles within category of LMVs stand de-recognized, requirement of drivers' badge in respect of said category of vehicles would be contrary to
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 provisions of MV Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar 4 held as follows:
"85. It is now well established that while Article 14 is designed to prevent a person or class of persons from being singled out from others similarly situated for the purpose of being specially subjected to discriminating and hostile legislation, it does not insist on an "abstract symmetry" in the sense that every piece of legislation must have universal application. All persons are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances, equal and the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment and, therefore, the protecting clause has been construed as a guarantee against discrimination amongst equals only and not as taking away from the State the power to classify persons for the purpose of legislation. This classification may be on different bases. It may be geographical or according to objects or occupations or the like. Mere classification, however, is not enough to get over the inhibition of the article. The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, and (2) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them. In short, while the article forbids class legislation in the sense of making improper discrimination by conferring privileges or imposing liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out of a large number of other persons similarly situated in relation to the privileges sought to be conferred or the 4 AIR 1952 SC 75,
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 liability proposed to be imposed, it does not forbid classification for the purpose of legislation, provided such classification is not arbitrary in the sense I have just explained. The doctrine, as expounded by this Court in the two cases I have mentioned, leaves a considerable latitude to the Court in the matter of the application of Article 14 and consequently has the merit of flexibility."
24. Further, in S.Seshachalam And Others Vs Chairman, Bar Council Of Tamil Nadu And Others5, it is held:
"21. Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that:
"14.Equality before law.--The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."
Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification. The classification, however, must not be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive"
but must be based on some real and substantial bearing, a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. But where equals and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 does not apply. Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons all of whom stand in the same relation to the privilege granted and between those on whom the privilege is conferred and the persons not so favoured, no reasonable distinction or substantial 5 2014 (16) SCC 72
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 difference can be found justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such privilege.
22. While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. But classification must not be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive". It must always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following two conditions:
firstly, the classification must be founded on the intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. Secondly, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are two distinct things. What is necessary is that there must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act. It is only when there is no reasonable basis for a classification that legislation making such classification may be declared discriminatory."
25. Yet another aspect would be whether requirement of mentioning drivers' badge in auto rickshaw cab permit would have any nexus with purpose of permit. The answer would be an emphatic 'NO!'. In fact, restricting right to apply for permit only to persons holding driving licence to drive transport vehicle along with drivers badge would be unreasonable classification violative of principles of equality envisaged in Art.14 of Constitution of India, 1950.
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022
26. Provisions of MV Act, namely Sections 66, 69, 70, 72 73 and 74 would indicate that stage carriage/contract carriage permits are issued to specified person in respect of specified vehicle, without linking them to driving licence of permit holder. They would only mandatorily require that only a person holding driving licence to drive particular class of vehicle would be authorised to drive transport vehicle subject to other provisions of MV Act namely, Section 3(1) requiring only person holding valid and effective driving licence to drive particular class of vehicle as authorized to drive said class of vehicle in public place; Section 4(2) requiring such person to be above age of 20 years; Section 7(1) requiring that only persons, who held learners licence to drive transport vehicle or driving licence to drive LMV for at least one year to be eligible for grant of driving licence in respect of transport vehicle and restriction on period of validity of licence as per Section 14(2), which would continue to apply.
27. Insofar as reference to Central/State Aggregators Rules, referring to drivers badge etc., same are in different context and not relevant for present purposes, which is
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 requirement of drivers badge number for applying/grant of auto rickshaw cab permit.
28. Insofar as Rambha Devi's case (supra), it is seen that there is reference to larger Bench and respondents have not placed on record any interim order against giving effect to ratio in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra) in interregnum. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Sadarangani and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.6 and Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Saju P Paul and Anr.7 has held that there would be no impediment in applying law declared, even during pendency of reference to larger Bench and mere reference would not amount to stay. Hence, until reference is answered, ratio in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra), has to be given effect to.
29. On perusal of endorsements at Anexures-C1 and C2, it is seen that only reason cited for rejection is non-mentioning of drivers badge number in applications. In view of above conclusion, said reason for rejection would be illegal. Consequently, petitioners' applications would require to be 6 (2012) 11 SCC 321 7 (2013) 2 SCC 41
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 considered and respondents are directed to consider same in time bound manner.
30. In view of above discussion, following ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed;
ii. It is held that Rule 12 of KMV Rules would not apply to such class of vehicles falling within category of LMVs.
iii. Condition no.7 in notification dated 26.03.2018 at Annexure-E is held illegal in view of decision in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra).
iv. Press Statement at Annexure-F dated 14.12.2020 issued by respondent no.2 is held ineffective, endorsements bearing nos. ¥Áæ.¸Á.C./DgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁ¸Á¤/ªÉʪÀ/21-22, dated 29.10.2021 and 11.11.2021 vide Annexures-C1 and C2 respectively are quashed.
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32244 WP No. 3036 of 2022 v. Respondents no.3 and 4 are directed to consider petitioners applications for grant of auto rickshaw permits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE psg* List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2