TAPAN KUMAR DUTT,J. - (1.) This matter in WP No. 1210 of 2011 has been heard along with three other matters namely WP No. 1212 of 2011, WP No. 1213 of 2011 and WP No. 1206 of 2011 since all the four matters are identical in nature, as submitted by the respective learned advocates. Thus the order passed in WP No. 1210 of 2011 will govern the other three writ petitions.
(2.) The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows:- The petitioner has purchased an auto rickshaw for plying the same for commercial purpose. It appears that the writ petitioner has also obtained Permit in respect of the Contract Carriage from the Directorate of Transport for the purpose of commercially plying the said auto rickshaw. It seems that in the Form of Certificate of Registration and in the Permit in respect of the Contract Carriage initially it was mentioned that the seating capacity of the said auto rickshaw was six. Subsequently, the Administration authorities issued a letter dated 16.6.2011 to the writ petitioner indicating that owing to an inadvertent error in the RC Book and the Permit the seating capacity has been shown to be six whereas the actual seating capacity is four. The writ petitioner was requested to furnish the said RC Book and Permit in respect of the said auto rickshaw for necessary correction. It appears that the writ petitioner was aggrieved by the said letter and a writ petition being WP No. 1080 of 2011 was filed by the writ petitioner. On 18.7.2011 a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition wherefrom it appears that the dispute which arose in the said writ petition was with regard to the seating capacity of the said auto rickshaw. The question was whether the auto rickshaw in question can accommodate six persons (including the driver) or four persons (including the driver). The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that according to the petitioner the said auto rickshaw can accommodate six persons (including the driver) and not four persons (including the driver) only. By the said order dated 18.7.2011 the said learned Single Judge was pleased to observe that the Administration authorities had agreed to make a physical verification of the said auto rickshaw if the same is produced before the said authorities for ascertaining whether the said auto rickshaw can carry six persons (driver inclusive) or four persons (driver inclusive). The said learned Single Judge was pleased to direct that the Transport Authority in question or rather its officer concerned will physically verify the vehicle in question for the above purpose and take a decision on the basis of such physical verification without being influenced by the certificates of the manufacturer or the local agent or the like some of whom already have said the auto rickshaw in question can carry six persons and some of whom said that it is meant only for four persons. His Lordship was further pleased to make it clear that the decision of the Transport Authority on its physical verification of the vehicle in question regarding capacity of the auto rickshaw will be final and the petitioner on that basis will operate the vehicle in question on the route concerned. His Lordship was further pleased to direct that the authority concerned must give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the same day i.e. 22.7.2011.
(3.) It appears from the impugned order dated 28.7.2011 passed by the Regional Transport Officer-IV, North and middle Andaman that the inspection was done on 22.7.2011 and the petitioner was heard on the same day in terms of the said order dated 18.7.2011. It appears from the impugned order that a letter has been issued by the dealer concerned from whom the petitioner had purchased the auto rickshaw indicating that the seating capacity of six was inadvertently mentioned. The said Transport Authority by the impugned order dated 28.7.2011 has rejected the stand taken by the petitioner and has directed that the Registration Certificate should be corrected. It appears from the impugned order itself that the Transport Authority concerned has made the inspection and has come to its conclusion keeping in mind the paramount consideration with regard to the safety of the passengers. The Transport Authority concerned has given its reasons for rejecting the petitioner's stand. The Transport Authority is of the view that by way of accommodating extra passenger in the said auto rickshaw the safety of the passenger has been compromised in more ways than one. The said authority has considered the application of brakes and consequent jerks it will create and the accident that may occur owing to such incident. The authority concerned has also considered the aspect of extra load in the auto rickshaw and the extra seat which has been accommodated in the auto rickshaw is wide enough to allow the passengers to sit securely and the extra seat disturbs the balance of load around centre of gravity of the auto rickshaw. The said Transport Authority also took into consideration that the petitioner was issued with a Contract Carriage Permit and the petitioner was expected to collect fares on the basis of travelled distance and the increase or decrease of the travelling passengers should have affected the income of the petitioner. According to the said Transport Authority, the petitioner is violating the law by operating the said vehicle as a Stage Carriage instead of Contract Carriage and therefore, the Registration Certificate is required to be corrected.;