AndM.P. Nos.1 v. The Secretary

India, praying for the issue of Writs of Mandamus, forbearing thesecond and third respondents and their subordinates in granting orissuing the Auto rickshaw permits in pursuant to the draw conductedby the third respondent in Chennai, on 1.3.2009 for the grant ofthe Auto rickshaw permits.WP No.3790 of 2009:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing thesecond and third resp9ondents from granting or issuing the Autorickshaw permits in pursuant to the draw conducted by the thirdrespondent on 1.3.2009 in Chennai pursuant to G.O.No.1645, dated18.12.2008 and consequently direct the first respondent to followtransport manner by adopting the following guidelines namely (i) heshould be a resident of Chennai, (ii) he should be possessing avalid licence to drive with badge experience, (iii) followseniority in driving with maximum age of 55 years (iv) he should bean auto driver cum owner only (v) persons who has given properdetail with verification and (vi) not to grant permit for those whoalready having permit in granting and issuing the Auto rickshawpermits.WP No.3884 of 2009:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records of the first respondent G.O.No.1645, dated18.12.2008, read with its amendment G.O.No.96, dated 30.1.2009, andquash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to theprinciples of natural justice, mala fide and consequently directthe first respondent to follow transport manner by adopting thefollowing guidelines namely (i) he should be a resident of Chennai,(ii) he should be possessing a valid licence to drive with badgeexperience, (iii) follow seniority in driving with maximum age of55 years (iv) he should be an auto driver cum owner only (v)persons who has given proper detail with verification and (vi) notto grant permit for those who already having permit in granting andissuing the Auto rickshaw permits.For Petitioner in WPs 3477 & 3486/2009: Mr.GovindaramanFor Petitioner in WP 3790/2009: Mr.N.KarunakaranFor Petitioner in WP 3884/2009: Mr.AL.ManoharanFor Respondents in all WPs: Mr.P.S.Raman, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Arumugham, Spl. G.P.. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDERWhile the first three writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.3477, 3486and 3790 of 2009 are for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to forbearthe respondents from granting or issuing Auto rickshaw permits inpursuance of the draw conducted on 1.3.2009, the fourth writpetition viz., W.P. No. 3884 of 2009 has been filed for quashing aGovernment Order on the basis of which, the entire process ofselection of persons for the grant of Auto rickshaw permits wasundertaken. 2. I have heard Mr.S.Govindaraman, learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner in two writ petitions and Mr.N.Karunakaran andMr.AL. Manoharan, petitioners appearing in person in the other twowrit petitions and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral appearing for the respondents.3. By successive orders passed in G.O.Ms.Nos.1492, 166, 841,1214 and 1431, Home Department, dated 30.10.1998, 10.2.1999,14.6.1999, 1.9.1999 and 29.10.1999 respectively, the Governmentimposed a ban and continued the same, on registration of new threeseater Auto rickshaws in the City of Chennai. However, by an orderin G.O.Ms.No.1099, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 7.12.2005,the Government decided to grant 5,000 fresh permits in the City ofChennai and adjoining areas and directed the Transport Commissionerand Regional Transport Authority, Chennai, to grant 5,000 freshpermits to three seater LPG dedicated Auto rickshaws to the owner-cum-driver applicants in the said area in relaxation of theexisting ban. 4. Simultaneously, another order was issued in G.O.Ms.No.1100, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 7.12.2005,introducing a "Loan Scheme with subsidy component" with a view toprovide self-employment and to help unemployed youth to acquireAuto rickshaws for their livelihood. In paragraph-4 of the saidG.O., detailed guidelines were issued for the scheme. Some of theguidelines, which may be of relevance to the cases on hand, are asfollows:-(a) The scheme is applicable to owner-cum-driver applicantsonly.(b) The beneficiary/applicant should possess a driving licenceto drive a light motor vehicle-transport vehicle/Auto rickshaw.(c) The beneficiary's annual income should not exceedRs.36,000/- per annum.(d) The beneficiary should not already possess an Autorickshaw permit in his name to avail the subsidy.(e) The permit granted under the scheme should not betransferred except in the case of death of the holder of thepermit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The above Government Order G.O.Ms.No.1100, dated 7.12.2005,was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.1809 of 2006 by thepetitioner in W.P.No.3486 of 2009. Similarly, the petitioner inW.P.No.3790 of 2009 also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.40582 of2005. But by an order dated 24.1.2006, W.P.No.1809 of 2006 wasdismissed, forcing the petitioner therein to file an appeal in W.A.No.181 of 2006. 6. The writ appeal W.A.No.181 of 2006 was taken up by theDivision Bench along with W.P.No.40582 of 2005 and both of themwere disposed of on 5.9.2006, on the basis of a statement made bythe learned Government Pleader that the scheme introduced underG.O.Ms.No.1100, dated 7.12.2005, was withdrawn by the Government. 7. Thereafter, the Government issued a fresh order in G.O.Ms.No.322, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 1.3.2007, cancellingG.O. Ms.Nos.1099 and 1100, dated 7.12.2005 and approving theguidelines for the loan-cum-subsidy scheme to 5,000 beneficiariesin Chennai Metropolitan area for the purchase of new LPG driventhree seater Auto rickshaws. The Government also permitted theRegional Transport Authorities of Chennai Metropolitan area, togrant 5,000 contract carriage permits to LPG driven three seaternew Auto rickshaws under the loan-cum-subsidy scheme and another5,000 contract carriage permits without subsidy under generalcategory. To facilitate the grant of such permits, the earlier banorder of the year 1999, was relaxed. The guidelines for the subsidyscheme were furnished in Annexure-I and the guidelines for non-subsidy scheme were furnished in Annexure-II to the said GovernmentOrder.8. Annexure-I to the aforesaid Government Order whichcontained the guidelines for the grant of permits under the loan-cum-subsidy scheme, prescribed as many as 17 conditions, some ofwhich are as follows:-"(a) The scheme shall be applicable to ChennaiMetropolitan Area.(b) The applicant should be a resident withinthe Chennai Metropolitan Area.(c) The age of the applicant shall be between25 and 40 years.(d) The applicant shall possess minimumeducational qualification of a pass in 10th standardfor the purpose of availing this scheme.(e) This scheme is applicable to driver-cum-owner only.(f) The applicant shall possess a valid drivinglicence to drive a light Motor Vehicle with Badgenumber/Transport Vehicle and shall have anexperience of not less than five years. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (g) The applicant should not have possessed anyAuto rickshaw permit.(h) More than one permit shall not be allottedto the same family under this scheme.(i) To avail the permit under this scheme, thefamily income of the applicant should not exceedRs.36,000/- per annum.(j) Other things being equal preference shallbe given to Woman, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribecandidates considering the seniority in age andexperience in driving the vehicle and for others theseniority in age and experience of driving thevehicles."9. Similarly, Annexure-II to the Government Order, containedonly one prescription for the grant of permit under the non-subsidised scheme and it is as follows:-"As the scheme is applicable to ChennaiMetropolitan Area, the applicant shall be a residentof Chennai Metropolitan Area."10. Again the scheme framed in G.O.Ms.No.322, dated 1.3.2007,was also challenged in a writ petition in W.P.No.27802 of 2007, bythe very same Association which is the petitioner in W.P.No.3486 of2009 herein. The prayer in the writ petition was for the issue of aWrit of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take on file, all theapplications filed in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.322, dated 1.3.2007and to consider all of them in accordance with law. The contentionof the petitioner therein was that there is a statutory duty castupon the respondents to consider all applications and to preparethe list of eligible persons after screaming. 11. When the above writ petition was pending, the Governmentcame up with an amendment to G.O.Ms.No.322, dated 1.3.2007, underan order in G.O.Ms.No.1645, Home (Transport-III) Department, dated18.12.2008. By the said amendment - (a) The number of permits to be granted under the subsidyscheme was brought down from 5,000 to 2,500 and the number ofpermits to be granted under the non-subsidy scheme was increasedfrom 5,000 to 7,500.(b) The minimum and maximum age prescribed under conditionNo.3 of Annexure-I for the subsidised scheme were modified from 25and 40 years to 23 and 45 years respectively and(c) The minimum educational qualifications prescribed incondition No.4 of Annexure-I was reduced from a pass in 10thstandard to a pass in 8th standard.12. By another order in G.O.Ms. No.96, Home (Transport-III)Department, dated 30.1.2009, the number of years of experience https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stipulated as 5 years under condition No.6 of Annexure-I ofG.O.Ms.No.322, dated 1.3.2007, was also brought down to 3 years.13. Thus, as a cumulative effect of G.O.Ms.No.322, dated1.3.2007, amended by G.O.Ms.No.1645, dated 18.12.2008 andG.O.Ms.No.96, dated 30.1.2009, the Government decided to grant7,500 permits under the non-subsidised scheme for general categoryand 2,500 permits under the subsidised scheme. The only conditionfor applying for a permit under the non-subsidised scheme (generalcategory) is that the applicant should be a resident of ChennaiMetropolitan Area. On the other hand, an applicant under thesubsidised scheme, had to fulfil several eligibility criteria suchas (i) a pass in 8th standard (ii) lower and upper age limits of 23and 45 years (iii) residency in Chennai Metropolitan Area (iv)possessing a valid driving licence with badge number and anexperience of not less than 3 years and being a driver-cum-owner. 14. After the issue of G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 30.1.2009, theTransport Department published notifications in English andVernacular Newspapers dated 4.2.2009, inviting interested personsto obtain applications for the grant of permits under bothcategories. It was indicated in the notification that 1,653 permitswill be issued under the subsidy scheme and 2,468 permits will beissued under the non-subsidy scheme.15. Since the response to the notifications was overwhelming,the respondents issued a press release on 13.2.2009 that a drawwould be conducted for selecting applicants for the grant ofpermits. Accordingly, a draw was conducted on 1.3.2009. 16. Immediately after the draw, W.P.Nos.3477 and 3486 of 2009came to be filed on 2.3.2009, merely seeking to forbear therespondents from issuing permits on the basis of the draw held on1.3.2009. These two writ petitions came up for admission on3.3.2009 and the petitioners appeared in person and argued. Afterhearing them, I directed the learned Additional Government Pleaderto take notice and posted the writ petitions to 9.3.2009. I alsodirected the respondents not to issue permits in the meantime. 17. On 9.3.2009, the respondents filed a common counter in thefirst two writ petitions and they were adjourned for enquiry. Inthe meantime, the next two writ petitions were filed and hence allof them were taken up together by the consent of parties for finaldisposal.18. The petitioners challenge the process adopted by therespondents for selecting persons for the grant of Auto rickshawpermits, basically on the following grounds:-(a) Under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it isthe Regional Transport Authority, who is conferred with the powerto grant a contract carriage permit subject to the conditions laiddown and the State Government has the power to limit the number ofcontract carriages either generally or for any specified type,under Section 74(3)(a), only if so, directed by the CentralGovernment. So far the Central Government has not issued any such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ direction and hence the restriction of the number of Auto rickshawpermits by the respondents, was in violation of statutoryprovisions.(b) Under Section 68(1) of the Act, a State TransportAuthority and several Regional Transport Authorities areconstituted for the purpose of exercising and discharging thepowers and functions specified in sub section (3) and such powerscannot be exercised by any one not authorised by sub sections (2)and (3) of Section 68 and Section 69. In this case, there has beena violation of these provisions.(c) Under Section 80(2), a Regional Transport Authority shallnot ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of anykind. Therefore, the rejection of the applications for permit, ofall those who were not successful in the draw of lots, is violativeof Section 80(2). At any rate, the second proviso to sub section(2) of Section 80 makes it obligatory for a Regional or StateTransport Authority, to give to the applicant, an opportunity ofbeing heard and to communicate in writing, the reasons for refusalof an application for permit. This was also not followed by therespondents. (d) Even if a limit upon the number of permits is imposed, theAct or the Rules do not authorise the conduct of a draw of lots.Rule 165 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, enables theTransport Authority to stop receiving applications, once theprescribed limit is reached. (e) Rules 166 and 167 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,list out the grounds on which an application cannot be rejected andthe grounds on which an application can be rejected, respectively.The non-selection of a person in the draw of lots, is not listed asone of the grounds for rejection.19. I have carefully considered the above contentions and Ishall deal with them one after another. 20. The first contention is based upon Sections 69, 73 and 74of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But an overview of the Act inentirety shows that Chapter-V of the Act, containing Sections 66 to96 deals with "Control of Transport Vehicles". Section 67 conferspower upon the State Government to control road transport. Clauses(c) and (d) of sub section (1) of Section 67 empower the StateGovernment to issue appropriate directions to the State TransportAuthority and Regional Transport Authority, having regard to -(i) the desirability of preventing thedeterioration of the road system and (ii) the desirability of preventing uneconomiccompetition among the holders of permits.Though Clauses (i) and (ii) specify the matters in respect of whichsuch directions can be issued by the State Government, Clause (iii)is a residuary clause, since it uses the expression "any other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matter". Therefore the power of the State Government to restrictthe number of permits, stems essentially from the broad powersconferred by Section 67. 21. The mandate contained in Section 74(3)(a) that the StateGovernment shall limit the number of contract carriages, if sodirected by the Central Government, cannot be understood to meanthat such power can be exercised only when so directed by theCentral Government. Section 74(3)(a) reads as follows:-"The State Government shall, if so directed bythe Central Government, having regard to the numberof vehicles, road conditions and other relevantmatters, by notification in the Official Gazette,direct a State Transport Authority and a RegionalTransport Authority to limit the number of contractcarriages generally or of any specified type as maybe fixed and specified in the notification,operating on city routes in towns with a populationof not less than five lakhs."22. A careful reading of Section 74(3)(a) extracted above,would show that whenever a direction is issued by the CentralGovernment, the State Government is obliged to direct the TransportAuthorities to limit the number of contract carriages. It does notmean that the State Government has no power to independently issuea direction to limit the number of contract carriages. If nodirection is issued by the Central Government, the State Governmentis free to issue such a direction restricting the number ofcontract carriages. This discretion may or may not be exercised bythe State Government of its own accord, in the absence of adirection from the Central Government. But this discretion will notbe available, once a direction is issued by the Central Government.Therefore the first contention that under Section 74(3)(a), theState Government is empowered to restrict the number of contractcarriages, only if a direction by the Central Government is issued,cannot be accepted.23. The second contention of the petitioners is that there aredifferent Regional Transport Authorities, constituted statutorilyunder Section 68(1) of the Act, with area of restriction over whichthey exercise jurisdiction. The grievance of the petitioners isthat under the notification dated 4.2.2009, the Regional TransportAuthority, Chennai, was appointed as Nodal Officer, though areasother than those coming under his jurisdiction were also includedin the draw of lots.24. But factually, it was only the draw of lots that wasconducted in a centralised fashion. The scrutiny of applicationsand issue of permits, even according to the respondents, would bedone only by the concerned Regional Transport Authorities. Theduties and functions conferred by the provisions of the Statute,according to the respondents, would be performed only by thoseindicated in the Act. Therefore the second contention also cannotbe accepted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25. The third contention is that under Section 80(2), anapplication shall not ordinarily be rejected and that by virtue ofthe second proviso to sub section (2) of Section 80, an opportunityof being heard and an order in writing are necessary for therejection of an application. Sub section (2) of Section 80 and thesecond proviso thereunder, read as follows:-"(2) A Regional Transport Authority, StateTransport Authority or any prescribed authorityreferred to in sub-section (1) of Section 66shall not ordinarily refuse to grant anapplication for permit of any kind made at anytime under this Act.Provided further that where a RegionalTransport Authority, State Transport Authorityor any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 66 refuses anapplication for the grant of a permit of anykind under this Act, it shall give to theapplicant in writing its reasons for therefusal of the same and an opportunity of beingheard in the matter."26. But the above provisions apply under normal circumstances.The above provision contains a procedural safeguard againstarbitrary exercise of power by the State or Regional TransportAuthorities. Considering the fact that the number of applicationsreceived for the grant of permits far exceeded the number ofpermits decided to be issued, the respondents have resorted to thesystem of draw of lots. Therefore, the compliance with therequirements of Section 80(2), cannot be demanded. The statisticsfurnished by the respondents in paragraphs-9 to 11 of their commoncounter affidavit shows that by the notifications published invarious newspapers, applications were invited for the grant of2,468 permits under the non-subsidy scheme and 1,653 permits underthe subsidy scheme. The total number of applications received were22,171 under the non-subsidy scheme and 4,373 under the subsidyscheme. In view of such overwhelming response, it was not possibleto provide an opportunity of hearing and to pass an order ofrejection. The draw conducted by the respondents in full publicview, is itself the opportunity for all the applicants. Noapplication is sought to be rejected by the respondents for anyspecial reasons. What was conducted by the respondents was aselection by draw of lots and not a rejection by a scrutiny ofindividual applications. Therefore, Section 80(2) has noapplication to the situation on hand. As stated above, therequirements of Section 80(2) are based upon the principles ofnatural justice. They would have no application when all theapplicants are treated on par on the same pedestal and the chanceof getting a permit was not made dependent upon the whims andfancies of the Transport Authorities. Therefore the thirdcontention cannot also be accepted. 27. The fourth and fifth contentions can be taken up together,since they are based upon Rules 165 to 167 of the Tamil Nadu Motor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vehicles Rules, which read as follows:-"165. Limit upon number of permits. - Whena Transport Authority has in exercise of itspowers under the Act, imposed a limit upon thenumber of permits of any class which may begranted for a specified route or a specifiedarea and has already granted such number ofpermits of that class, the Transport Authorityor the Secretary of the Transport Authority, ifauthorised in this behalf by the TransportAuthority, may decline to receive furtherapplication for such permits in respect of anysuch route or areas.166. Not be rejected – grounds – (1) TheTransport Authority shall not reject anapplication for the grant or renewal of anypermit or for the grant of or renewal ofcounter-signature of any permit on any or allof the following grounds namely:-(i) When an application is presented to aTransport Authority not having jurisdiction;(ii) When the form of application has notbeen correctly filled in;(iii) Where the prescribed fee has beenomitted to be paid; and(iv) Where the application is not made inthe prescribed form.(2) In every such case, the TransportAuthority shall return the application forpresentation to the Transport Authorityconcerned or for rectification of other defectsinforming the applicant of the correctprocedure in the matter and giving him not morethan seven days from the date of receipt of thecommunication to comply with such direction,failing which the application will standrejected.167. Stage carriage – grounds on whichapplication can be rejected. - The RegionalTransport Authority or the State TransportAuthority, as the case may be, may reject anapplication for the grant of a stage carriagepermit on one or more of the following grounds,namely:-(i) Financial instability as evidenced byinsolvency or decree remaining unsatisfied ason thirty days prior to the date of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consideration of the application or failure toproduce:(a) in the case of a new entrant, asolvency certificate from an Officer of theRevenue Department not below the rank of aTahsildar for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupeesthirty thousand only):Provided that purchase of a motor vehiclefrom money borrowed or under hire purchaseagreement shall not be a disqualification byitself;(b) in the case of others, a currentclearance certificate in respect of Income Taxand Motor Vehicles Tax:Provided that this clause shall not applyin cases where the applicant is a StateTransport Undertaking.(ii) Unsatisfactory performance as a stagecarriage service operator by the applicant asevidenced by his having been punished for twotimes or more for any one or more of theoffences specified below within thirty-sixmonths reckoned from fifteen days prior to thedate of consideration of application -(a) Overloading;(b) Plying without permit;(c) Plying without payment of tax orplying without payment of tax before the duedate;(d) Plying on an unauthorised route ormaking an unauthorised trip;(e) Plying without certificate of fitness;(f) Non-adherence to the schedule oftimings;(g) Collection of excess fare; and(h) Conveyance of goods or luggageprohibited by or under any law:Provided that orders of punishment whichare stayed by the Appellate Authority shall notbe taken into account for the above purpose:Provided further that this clause shall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not apply in cases where the applicant is aState Transport Undertaking.(iii) Trafficking in permits."28. Rule 165 entitles the Transport Authority to decline toreceive any further application, whenever he had imposed a limitupon the number of permits and the permits already granted hadalready reached such ceiling limits. But in the case on hand, thetotal number of permits to be issued, has been restricted by anorder issued by the Government. As we have seen in the narration offacts, the Government had issued a ban for registering new threeseater Auto rickshaws way back in the year 1998 underG.O.Ms.No.1492, dated 30.10.1998. The ban was extended periodicallyunder G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 10.2.1999, G.O.Ms.No.841, dated14.8.1999, G.O.Ms.No.1214, dated 1.9.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.1439, dated29.10.1999. The ban continued upto 7.12.2005 and was lifted byG.O.Ms.Nos.1099 and 1100, dated 7.12.2005. These orders were latermodified by G.O.Ms.No.322, dated 1.3.2007 and subsequently byG.O.Ms.No.1645, dated 18.12.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 30.1.2009.Therefore it is clear that it was not the Regional TransportAuthority but the Government, which had imposed a limit upon thenumber of permits to be issued. Rule 165 applies only when theRegional Transport had imposed a limit. Hence the reliance placedupon Rule 165 is erroneous.29. Equally the reliance placed upon Rules 166 and 167 is illfounded. The stage of scrutiny of individual applications, has notyet arisen. Since there were 22,171 applications for the grant of2,468 permits under the non-subsidy scheme, the respondentsresorted to a selection by draw of lots. After such selection, therespondents may have to take into account the provisions of theseRules, before the final decision to issue or not to issue permit istaken.30. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General,submitted in the course of arguments that the applications of allthe applicants, who have been selected in the draw of lots, will bescrutinised now to find out their eligibility for the grant ofpermits. Therefore, Rules 166 and 167 may come into play only now.Hence, the fourth and fifth contentions of the petitioners deserveto be rejected.31. Mr.S.Govindaraman, learned counsel for the petitionerssubmitted that there was no transparency in the draw of lots andthat information about the draw of lots was not furnishedsufficiently in advance and that on the appointed day, all that hadhappened was that the names of selected candidates were justdisplayed in a screen. 32. But the above contention stems from the understanding ofthe petitioners that a draw of lots could only be by a manualprocess in which the names or numbers are written in slips ofpapers and all of them are put into a huge box, from out of which,a few slips are taken out randomly. With the advancement oftechnology, a draw of lots can now be conducted with the help of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ software, which is what has been done by the respondents. Inparagraph-28 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have statedthat the National Informatics Centre (NIC) supplied a softwareknown as "Hyber Text Pre Processer (P.H.P) and Structured QueryLanguage (MYSQL) Program". With the use of this software, therespondents adopted a "Random Selection Method", for the draw oflots. 33. The Technical Director of the National Informatics Centrealso filed an affidavit about the above software employed by themfor the draw of lots. A demonstration of the manner in which thesoftware works, was also made by the Official of the NationalInformatics Centre in the Court Hall for my easy appreciation,using a Laptop. It is seen from the demonstration that once theapplication number, name and address of all the applicants are fedinto the computer and a command is given to select a particularnumber of persons, the computer selects the required number ofpersons on a random basis and displays their names on the screenwithin a few seconds. Since the selection is made in such a shortspan of time, the applicants appear to have entertained a doubtabout the reliability of the process. But I find no reason to doubtthat a scientific process had been adopted by the respondents toselect 2,468 candidates from out of 22,171 applicants. Thereforethe contention that there was in fact no draw of lots, cannot beaccepted.34. Lastly it was contended by Mr.S.Govindaraman, learnedcounsel for the petitioners as well as some of the petitionersappearing in person, that the drivers of Auto rickshaws who havebeen in the field for decades and who carry a badge issued by theTransport Department, could not succeed in the draw of lots. On thecontrary, several persons, who are either businessmen or GovernmentServants have been selected in the draw of lots. Similarly, personswho already have a permit in their own name or in the name of theirfamily members, have been selected in the draw of lots. Therefore,the petitioners submitted that the selection process should not beapproved. 35. But unfortunately for the petitioners, the onlyqualification prescribed under Annexure-II to G.O.Ms.No.322, HomeDepartment, dated 1.3.2007, for the grant of permits under the non-subsidy scheme, is that the applicant should be a resident ofChennai Metropolitan area. It is only for permits under the subsidyscheme that several qualifications are prescribed. The amendmentsbrought forth to G.O.Ms.No.322, under G.O.Ms.Nos.1645 and 96, arealso only with reference to the applications under the subsidyscheme. When the petitioners have filed applications only inpursuance of these Government Orders, it may not be open to themnow to contend that the applications of persons who already hold apermit, should be rejected. In other words, the petitioners cannotnow compel the respondents to reject any application on the basisof a qualification or disqualification not prescribed inG.O.Ms.Nos.322 or 1645 or 96. 36. Despite the above hurdle, I am of the considered view thatit is still open to the Government to fine tune G.O.Ms.Nos.322, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1645 and 96, so as to achieve the purpose for which the Governmentrestricted the number of permits to be issued under both theschemes. It is seen from paragraph-3 of G.O.Ms.No.1099, Home(Transport-VI) Department, dated 7.12.2005 that the decision tolift the ban on issue of fresh Auto rickshaw permits, was takenonly to enable "owner-cum-driver applicants" to get permits. Theban was in force from 1998 and the very purpose of lifting the samewas stated to be to provide opportunity to the owners-cum-drivers.This G.O.Ms.No.1099, was rescinded by G.O.Ms.No.322, dated1.3.2007. But even then, the purpose stated in G.O.Ms.No.1099, wasnot obliterated by the subsequent order. Paragraph No.1 ofG.O.Ms.No.322, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 1.3.2007,clearly indicates that the ban on issue of fresh permits, that wasin force from 1998 till 2005, was lifted for the purpose ofproviding permits to unemployed youth. By this G.O.Ms.No.322, 5,000permits were decided to be issued under the subsidy scheme and5,000 permits were decided to be issued under the non-subsidyscheme for general category of persons. But this number got changedwith G.O.Ms.Nos.1645 and 96, to 2,500 under the subsidy scheme and7,500 under the non-subsidy scheme. Therefore, the chances ofunemployed youth or owners-cum-drivers to get permits, gotsubstantially reduced, by virtue of G.O.Ms.Nos.1645 and 96. Thishas actually led the Association of Drivers to come up with thisbatch of writ petitions. 37. Therefore, taking into account the fact that the very banorder was lifted after a period of 7 years (1998 to 2005), onlywith the avowed object of providing permits to owners-cum-driversand to unemployed youth and also taking into consideration thegrievance of the petitioners, I am of the considered view that theTransport Authorities may have to scrutinise the applications ofall persons who are selected in the draw of lots and reject theapplications of those who already hold a permit either in theirname or in the name of any member of their family. The TransportAuthorities have the power to do this by virtue of Section 80(2) ofthe Act. To enable the Transport Authorities to do this, theGovernment may have to issue suitable amendments to Annexure-II toG.O.Ms.No.322, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated 1.3.2007. Thatthe Government has power to issue such directions by way ofamendment, cannot be disputed since persons whose applications areselected in the draw of lots, are yet to acquire a vested right.38. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are disposedof on the following lines:-(i) The random selection method adopted by the respondents forselecting candidates for the grant of permits, is perfectlyjustified and legally valid. Therefore, the challenge to the same,made by the petitioners, is rejected.(ii) The applications of persons who are successful in thedraw of lots, may now be taken up and scrutinised by the concernedRegional Transport Authorities under the provisions of the Statuteand the Rules including Rules 166 and 167 of the Tamil Nadu MotorVehicles Rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) Before such scrutiny by the Regional TransportAuthorities, the Government may consider, for the grant of permitsunder the non-subsidy scheme, the imposition of such additionalconditions, as would fulfil the object for which the ban order waslifted by the Government. It will be open to the Government toprescribe that the applications of those who already own permitseither in their names or in the names of any of their familymembers, may be rejected. It will also be open to the Government toprescribe any other condition that would prevent financiers andeconomically well placed persons from getting permit by the sheerfortuitous circumstance of getting selected in the draw of lots.39. All the writ petitions are disposed of on the above lines.No costs. The interim orders passed earlier shall stand vacated andall the miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.SvnTo1.The Secretary, Home (Transport-III) Department, State Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.3.The Joint Transport Commissioner- cum-The Regional Ayanavaram Transport Authority (Chennai Region), Chennai – 600 023.+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.12397 + 2 CC To Mr.M.Anandhan, Advocate SR NO.12315+ 1 CC To Mr.N.Karunakaran, Advocate SR NO.12414+ 1 CC To Mr.AL.Manoharan, Advocate SR NO.12413 Common Order in W.P. Nos.3477, 3486, 3790 and 3884 of 2009KA {CO}TP/6.4.2009.