- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 19-10-1996 Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel. The petitioner claims to be an ex-army man and he has alleged that after su perannuation he purchased a three wheeler under the Army quota and got his name registered in the office of the respondent No. 3 on 15-5-1996 and there after applied for a contract carriage permit on 8-7-1996 for operating the three wheeler. The said application was considered by the R. T. A. Kanpur. In its resolution dated 12-7-1996, the K. TA rejected the application of the petitioner whereas it granted permit to 21 other applicants. True copy of the order of the R. T. A. is Annexure-1 to the writ peti tion. Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 19-10-1996 vide Annexure-4. Hence this petition. A perusal of the appellate order dated 19-10-1996 shows that it has based its decision on the finding of the R. T. A. dated 12- 7-1996. I have perused the order dated 12-7-1996. In that resolution, the R. T. A. decided that after 15-3-1996 no application for tempo, taxi will be entertained and no permit will be granted. This decision was taken in lieu of the various problems includ ing condition of road, pollution etc. It is not for this Court to interfere with the decisions of the authorities in this connection. This is a fact that a lot of permits already exist in the city and tempo and taxis are one of the principal causes of pollution as mentioned in the resolution. If the authorities feel that pollution can be checked by stopping grant ing of permits it is not for this Court to interfere. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;