Santhi Prabha vs Government of Tamilnadu and Others

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the G.O.Ms. No. 762, dated 10.07.2008, vide which, G.O.Ms. No. 874, dated 06.07.1998 stood withdrawn.

The Petitioner was granted licence by the Government to sell the forms prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The licence stipulated that certain Forms were to be supplied free of cost, whereas the Petitioner could charge for other forMs.

After the expiry of the licence period, the licensee approached this Court for directing the Respondent to extend the licence period. By way of interim relief, the prayer was made for restraining the Respondents from disturbing the functioning of the Petitioner, pending decision by the Government, to renew the licence.

The writ petitions were finally dismissed by holding that in view of the issuance of the impugned G.O., there was No. right with the Petitioner to claim renewal of the licence.

The Petitioner has now challenged the impugned order on the ground of Order being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as the Petitioner have been denied the right to carry on business, vide impugned G.O. whereas under earlier Government Order, the Petitioner was permitted to carry on business of selling the forms prescribed under Motor Vehicles Act.

The impugned G.O. is also challenged on the ground of legitimate expectation, by submitting that the licence granted to the Petitioner, on earlier occasion resulted in legitimate expectation that it would be renewed, on expiry.

On consideration, I find No. force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The forms under the Motor Vehicles Act are distributed free of costs. Therefore, it is the duty of the Government to see that the forms are made available to public free of cost, and that is, what is achieved by the impugned G.O.

It cannot be, therefore, said that it is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as No. person has right to carry on business/profession against public interest.

Similarly the 2nd contention of the Petitioner is also misconceived. As already observed above, the plea of legitimate expectation could be raised, if some other persons were granted licenses. The Petitioner cannot claim renewal of licence or challenge impugned G.O., as the Government has decided to distribute the forms free of costs, in the interest of public at large.

No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order.

Consequently, the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. No. costs.