D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The Notification No. 988-WT/3M-90/2003 dated 5th March, 2004 was the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge had held that the said notification was well within the jurisdiction of the authority issuing the same in exercise of power under section 74(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and dismissed the writ petition. The present appeal has since been filed against the said order dated 7th July, 2004 in W.P. No. 10955 (W) of 2004.
(2.) Mr. Giri, learned Counsel for the appellant, while submitting in support of the application for interim order had addressed the Court on the merits of the appeal; similarly the learned Counsel for the State Transport Authority Mr. Dey had addressed the Court on the merits of the appeal. Therefore, along with the application, we also treat the appeal by consent of parties as on day's list for hearing and dispose of the same in the following manner.
(3.) Mr. Giri had contended that the permit that was granted to his client was a contract carriage permit operative in an area stipulated without any particular route with a meter. By virtue of a notification, the character of the permit is being altered, it is being confined in a route with the fair structure determined. This is wholly outside the purview of section 74(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Auto-Rickshaw as defined in section 2(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act having three wheels constructed or adapted and used to carry not more than three passengers excluding the driver. He also refers to the relevant rules for use of meters. As such the said notification is invalid so far as its restriction in operation in the area under the permit and the fair structure is concerned.;