High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition is allowed accordingly.
Soman V. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 18185 of 2016 (W)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Shaji P. Chaly
- Judgment Date
- 2016-06-01
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition is allowed accordingly; respondents 2 and 4 are directed to accept applications for variation of permit conditions and to process them in accordance with law as per the court’s directions and earlier decisions.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Soman V.
- Janardanan P.
- Sukumaran K.
- Shafeeq M.
- Sidhick Puzhakkara
- Aneesh A.
- Sarfu P.
- Sasi P.
- Aneesh D.K.
- Vijayan M.
- Janardanan
- Kunhirishnan K.
- Raju M.
- Anil V.V.
- Muhammed Kunhi K.H.
- Rajeevan K.
- Suneesh A.
- Sankara.H
- Shiek Anief
- Muhammed Iqbar Aviyil
- Vijalal M.G.
- Ahammedali
- Sasidharan S/Narayanan Nair A.
- Fathima L.K.
- Vinod K.
- Ajaykumar T.V.
- Madhu K.
- Prabhath B.
- Rakesh P.
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Motor Vehicles Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
- Regional Transport Authority, Kasaragod District represented by its Secretary, R.T.O., Kanhangad 685389
- Regional Transport Officer, Kanhangad, Kasaragod District - 685309
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • M. Shaju Purushothaman
- • K.S. Rajesh
- • Murugan P.V.
- • M. Sukumaran
Counsels for Respondents
- • K.A. Sanjeetha
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition (WP(C).No.18185 of 2016) filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam challenges the contract carriage permits issued to 29 auto-rickshaw operators, specifically the restriction that vehicles must not park or pick up passengers within Kasaragod city. The petitioners seek variation of permit conditions to allow parking inside the city to meet demand, arguing that existing parking is inadequate and commuters are concentrated in the urban area. They filed Exts.P2 to P2(Z) and Exhs. P2(A)–P2(W) for variations, but respondents 2 and 3 declined to accept these variation applications, citing circulars and higher directives. The petitioners argue that permit variation should be considered on its own merits, independent of broad circulars, and rely on Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA (2014) 3 KLT 341 to contend that such area-wide restrictions cannot be unilaterally imposed by motor vehicle authorities; if restrictions are to be imposed, the State Government must issue a valid notification. The court, after hearing, notes that earlier decisions hold motor vehicle authorities lack power to impose such permit conditions through circulars and that State Government authority is required for any such restriction. Consequently, the petition is allowed, with directions to respondents 2 and 4 to accept and process variation applications in accordance with law and the court’s preceding decisions.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that variation of permit conditions must be considered on a case-by-case basis, independent of circulars, and that the restriction banning parking in Kasaragod city is impractical given the dense commuter demand. They submitted Exts.P2–P2(W) and P2(A)–P2(D) for variation and urge the court to accept and decide these variations lawfully. They rely on Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA (2014) 3 KLT 341 to argue that permit restrictions cannot be unilaterally imposed by motor vehicle authorities and, if any restrictions are to exist, the State Government must issue a notification. They assert that existing circulars cannot supersede statutory authority and that the petition should be allowed with directions to consider variations on merit.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents, supported by the Government Pleader, argued that permit conditions and any restrictions derive from circulars and higher directives; the authorities are bound by these guidelines and are not empowered to create or vary restrictions outside the framework established by the Transport Department. They contend that the issue involves interpreting circulars related to permit conditions and that the authority’s power to impose such restrictions may require State Government notification. They emphasize consistency with prior decisions and the need to follow established administrative procedures.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA | 2014(3) KLT 341 | Positive | The court relies on this decision to hold that motor vehicle authorities cannot unilaterally impose permit restrictions and that any restriction requires a State Government notification, supporting the petitioners’ challenge to the existing restrictions. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Soman V. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY**
## **WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938**
## **WP(C).No. 18185 of 2016 (W)**
**----------------------------**
## **PETITIONER(S):**
**1. SOMAN V.,**
- **S/O.KRISHNAN.V, VATTATHODU HOUSE, ARAYI, PALAKKAL, KANHANGAD SOUTH POST.**
**2. JANARDANAN P.,**
- **S/O.DASAPPA NAYAK, PARAKKADAN HOUSE,**
**ATHIYAMBOOR, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD.**
**3. SUKUMARAN K.,**
- **S/O.KUNHAMBU, BAKKOTTU HOUSE, ARAYIKADAVU, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**4. SHAFEEQ M.,**
- **S/O.ABOOBACKER M., MANDIYAN, HOUSE, PADANNAKKAD P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD.**
**5. SIDHICK PUZHAKKARA, S/O.MAMMU C.H., NAAS MANZIL, P.O.PADANNAKKAD, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD.**
## **6. ANEESH A.,**
- **S/O.RAGHAVAN B., KURUNTHOOR, PADANNAKKAD P.O., HOSDURG, KASARAGOD.**
**7. SARFU P., S/O.ABOOBACKER.M, KARAKKUNDU HOUSE, P.O.PADNEKKAD, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD.**
**8. SASI P., S/O.POKKAYI M.V., OZHINHAVALAPPU HOUSE, OZHINHAVALAPPU CROSS ROAD, KASARAGOD.**
**9. ANEESH D.K., S/O.D.K.BHASKARAN, KURUTHUR HOUSE, PADANNAKKAD P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**10. VIJAYAN M., S/O.NARAYANAN 302(17/515)16, MOOLAKKAL HOUSE, ARAYI KARTHIKA, KANHANGAD SOUTH P.O., KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY, KASARAGOD.**
_**WP(C).No. 18185 of 2016 (W)**_
**11. JANARDANAN,**
- **S/O.KANNAN, H.NO.101/23, OZHINHAVALAPPU P.O., KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY, KASARAGOD.**
**12. KUNHIKRISHNAN K., S/O.KANNAN N., H.NO.13/355, KANDANKADAVU HOUSE, MURIYANAVI, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**13. RAJU M., S/O.MADHAVAN, 5/158(8/343), ATHIKOTH, A.C.NAGAR, BALLA P.O., CHEMMATTAVAYAL, KASARAGOD.**
**14. ANIL V.V., S/O.NARAYANAN, 13/52 F, KANHANGAD, KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD SOUTH P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**15. MUHAMMED KUNHI K.H.,**
- **S/O.ANDUMAYI.K.H, KHM MANZIL, BELLA KADAPPURAM, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**16. RAJEEVAN K.,**
- **S/O.DAMODARAN K., 21/32, BELLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD.**
**17. SUNEESH A.,**
- **S/O.MOHANAN P., ARAYI PALAKKAL, KANHANGAD SOUTH P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**18. SANKARA.H**
- **S/O.KRISHNAYYA, NEAR NITYANANDA ASRAM, HOSDURG P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD.**
**19. SHIEK ANIEF,**
**S/O. RABIYABI, 12/204(31/368), SHABEENA MANZIL, P.O. KANHANGAD KUSHAL NAGAR, KASARAGOD.**
**20. MUHAMMED IQBAR AVIYIL, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, ARAJH MANZIL, KANNIKULANGARA, P.O.BELLIKOTH, KASARAGOD.**
**21. VIJALAL M.G., S/O.GOPALAN M.K., MULLU, VENGAPURATH, KOTTAPPARA, PULLUR P.O., AMBALATHARA, ANANDASHARAM, KASARAGOD.**
**22. AHAMMADALI, S/O.MUHAMMADKUNHI P.S., 27 A/123, OZHINHAVALAPPU HOUSE, OZHINHAVALAPPU P.O., KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY, KASARAGOD.**
**23. SASIDHARAN S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR A., AKASH, MOOVARIKUNDU, KURUNTHUR, PADNEKKAD.**
_**WP(C).No. 18185 of 2016 (W)**_
**24. FATHIMA L.K., S/O.KUTTY, 15/68(16/499), C.K.(H), KOOLIANGAL, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**25. VINOD K., S/O.KUMBA K., 14/406, LAKSHMI NAGAR, THERUVATH, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**26. AJAYAKUMAR T.V., S/O.KUMARAN T.V., H.NO.51B/5, THANATHVALAPPIL HOUSE, NELLIKATT, BALL P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**27. MADHU K.,**
- **S/O.KOTTAN, 8/297, KALYANIKKORA, BALLA P.O., KANHANGAD, MUNICIPALITY, KASARAGOD.**
**28. PRABHATH B., S/O.RADHA 11/64(38/389), BATHERIKKAL(H), BALLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**29. RAKESH P., S/O.BALAN P., KUTTIKKAL HOUSE, HOSDURG, BALLA P.O., KASARAGOD.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.MURUGAN P.V. SRI. M.SUKUMARAN**
**RESPONDENT(S):**
**1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**
**2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, R.T.O., KANHANGAD 685 389.**
**3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 685 309.**
**BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**rvs.**
_**WP(C).No. 18185 of 2016 (W)**_
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :**
**EXHIBIT-P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DT.5.10.2015. EXHIBIT-P1(A): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DT.29.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P1(B): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DT.24.3.2015. EXHIBIT-P1(C): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DT.13.1.2016. EXHIBIT-P1(D): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 5TH PETITIONER DT.29.1.2016. EXHIBIT-P1(E): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 6TH PETITIONER DT.20.2.2016. EXHIBIT-P1(F): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 7TH PETITIONER DT.19.10.2015. EXHIBIT-P1(G): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 8TH PETITIONER DT.16.1.2016. EXHIBIT-P1(H): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 9TH PETITIONER DT.21.8.2015. EXHIBIT-P1(I): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 10TH PETITIONER DT.13.4.2012. EXHIBIT-P1(J): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 11TH PETITIONER DT.10.10.2011. EXHIBIT-P1(K): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 12TH PETITIONER DT.17.12.2015. EXHIBIT-P1(L): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 13TH PETITIONER DT.11.5.2012. EXHIBIT-P1(M): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 14TH PETITIONER DT.5.1.2013. EXHIBIT-P1(N): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 15TH PETITIONER DT.31.10.2015. EXHIBIT-P1(O): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 16TH PETITIONER DT.28.2.2015. EXHIBIT-P1(P): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 17TH PETITIONER DT.29.3.2016.**
_**WP(C).No. 18185 of 2016 (W)**_
**EXHIBIT-P1(Q): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 18TH PETITIONER DT.2.4.2016.**
**EXHIBIT-P1(R): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 19TH PETITIONER DT.17.12.2012.**
**EXHIBIT-P1(S): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 20TH PETITIONER DT.16.4.2015.**
**EXHIBIT-P1(T): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 21ST PETITIONER DT.11.6.2015.**
**EXHIBIT-P1(U): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 22ND PETITIONER DT.22.10.2012.**
**EXHIBIT-P1(V): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 23RD PETITIONER DT.7.5.2012.**
**EXHIBIT-P1(W): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 24TH PETITIONER DT.19.11.2012.**
**EXHIBIT-P1(X): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 25TH PETITIONER DT.24.1.2014.**
**EXHIBIT-P1(Y): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 26TH PETITIONER DT.19.7.2013.**
**EXHIBIT-P1(Z): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 27TH PETITIONER DT.17.2.2012. EXHIBIT-P1(AA):THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 28TH PETITIONER DT.14.8.2013.**
**EXHIBIT-P1(AB):THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF THE 29TH PETITIONER DT.28.4.2016.**
**EXHIBIT-P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(A): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(B): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(C): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(D): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016.**
_**WP(C).No. 18185 of 2016 (W)**_
**EXHIBIT-P2(E): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(F): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(G): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 8TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(H): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 9TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(I): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 10TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(J): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 11TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(K): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 12TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(L): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 13TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(M): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 14TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(N): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 15TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(O): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 16TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(P): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 17TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(Q): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 18TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(R): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 19TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(S): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 20TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(T): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 21ST PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(U): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 22ND PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016. EXHIBIT-P2(V): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 23RD PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016.**
_**WP(C).No. 18185 of 2016 (W)**_
**EXHIBIT-P2(W): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 24TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016.**
**EXHIBIT-P2(X): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 25TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016.**
**EXHIBIT-P2(Y): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 26TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016.**
**EXHIBIT-P2(Z): THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 27TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016.**
**EXHIBIT-P2(AA):THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 28TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016.**
**EXHIBIT-P2(AB):THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT CONDITION OF THE 29TH PETITIONER DT.20.4.2016.**
**EXHIBIT-P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JDUGMENT IN W.P.(C) 7663/2015 DT.11.3.2015.**
**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:**
**NIL.**
**/TRUE COPY/**
**P.A.TO JUDGE**
**rvs.**
## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.**
----------------------------------------------- **W.P.(C). No.18185 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of June, 2016**
## **JUDGMENT**
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking direction to respondents 2 and 3 to accept Exts.P2 to P2(AB) applications for variation of conditions of permit submitted by the petitioners and grant variation as sought for in the application. The subject matter of this writ petition relates to the conditions imposed in contract carriage permit issued to the petitioners that petitioners should not park or pick up passengers within the Kanhangad city and the validity of such restrictions imposed in the permit.
2. Brief facts for the disposal of this writ petition are thus; petitioners are issued with contract carriage permit for the autorickshaws owned by them, evident from Exts.P1 and P1(AB). In the permit so issued a restriction is incorporated in the permit that vehicles should not park or pick up passengers within the Kasaragod city. The petitioners find it difficult to meet the ends
2
W.P.(C). No.18185 of 2016
by plying the autorickshaws at the present parking place where commuters are seldom. petitioners desire to ply the autorickshaws by parking it within the Kasaragod city where large number of commuters are available, whereas number of autorickshaws are inadequate to meet the requirement. petitioners submitted Ext.P2 series of applications for variation of the conditions of the permit. But respondents 2 and 3 are not prepared to accept the application for variation on conditions of permit based on the restrictions imposed by the Transport Commissioner as per circulars. It is the contention of the petitioners that application for variation of conditions of permit is to be considered individually and independently irrespective of the orders of higher authorities. It is also contended that the said question was considered by this court and settled the legal position in **Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA [** 2014(3) KLT 341]. Therefore, the grievance voiced by the petitioners in this writ petition is non- acceptance of applications and seeking a direction to accept the application seeking variation of
3
W.P.(C). No.18185 of 2016
conditions of permit and grant variation after hearing the parties.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader.
4. The subject issue in this writ petition is considered by this court in the decisions cited supra and has held that the respondent authorities are not empowered to impose the restrictions with number of permits to be issued in an area and that if at all any such restrictions are to be imposed in such manner only the State Government has the power by issuing a notification in that accord. This question was considered by this court in various other writ petitions and has held that the motor vehicles authorities are not empowered to issue such conditions on the permit on the basis of circulars issued by the Regional Transport Authority. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners are entitled to succeed in this writ petition.
5. Therefore, there will be a direction to respondents 2 and
4
W.P.(C). No.18185 of 2016
3 to accept applications for variation of conditions of permit from the petitioners and do the same in accordance with law as per the directions contained above and issued by this court in the decision cited supra.
Writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE**
smv 02.06.2016