Mr Deena Dayalan V vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6328 Kant

                                        -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;

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.

(2017) 14 SCC 663

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

(2023) 4 SCC 723

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.

1998 SCC OnLine Ori 106

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.

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

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

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

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

(2012) 11 SCC 321

(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*