Kumar Gaurav vs State Of Assam And 2 Others

Heard Mr. S.N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing counsel for the Transport department.

By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner projects that he is a proprietor of a firm engaged in

manufacturing of e-rickshaws and that they have applied before the State Transport Authority (STA) for requisite approval of the e-rickshaws. The

grievance of the petitioners is that the application of the petitioner for grant of registration permission of e-rickshaws and e-carts for new model has

not been accepted by the Commissioner of Transport (respondent No.1) by citing a decision taken by the STA in its meeting dated 05.08.2019. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no reason has been assigned not to accept this application and why grant of permission has been kept on

hold. It is submitted that unless the registration approval is granted, the petitioner would not be able to commercially sell their product, affecting their

right to do business.

The learned Standing counsel for the Transport department has produced a copy of the instructions dated 26.02.2021 given to her by the Transport

department wherein it is indicated that as per the decision taken by STA on 05.08.2019, the registration permission of e-rickshaws and e-cart of new

models have been kept on hold. It is submitted that the said decision is mentioned in para-9 of the minutes of meeting held by the STA, Assam on

05.08.2019.

Having regard to the nature of the grievances raised by the petitioner, let a notice returnable on 04.08.2021 be issued.

As the learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, additional copies of the writ petition be served on her within 2(two)

days.

Considering the nature of resolution taken in para-9 of the minutes dated 05.08.2019 of the STA, the Court is of the considered opinion that the

decision to keep on hold the registration permit of new models of e-rickshaw would not preclude the respondent no.1 authority to accept the prayer

made by manufacturer like the petitioner for grant of registration permit and being a statutory body, they would be obliged to receive such application

and to respond to it by referring to their decision to keep the matter on hold and it is unfortunate that a citizen has to rush to Court just because the

statutory authority has arbitrarily decided to refuse to accept an application for registration permit.

Accordingly, as an interim measure, the Court is inclined to provide that the STA (respondent no.2) and Commissioner and Secretary to the

Government of Assam, Transport Department (respondent no.1) shall make arrangement to accept the application of the petitioner for registration

permit with liberty to make such reply as it may deem fit and proper and it is also provided that as and when the authorities decide to issue registration

permit to a new model, the application of the petitioner shall be considered.

The affidavit-in-opposition may be filed prior to the next date fixed.

The communication dated 22.06.2021 along with the copy of the minutes of the meeting of STA dated 05.08.2019 as produced by the learned

Standing counsel is kept on record.

The learned Standing counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the nomenclature of the respondent no.2 is incorrect. Accordingly,

the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to correct the cause tile. The said prayer is allowed. The learned counsel for

the petitioner is permitted to correct the cause-title in respect of the respondent no.2 in the presence of the learned Registrar (Judicial) and the

corrected copy of the writ petition with requisite additional copies for the other respondents may be served on the learned Standing counsel for the

respondents within 2(two) days.

List the matter on 04.08.2021.