MATHUR, J. - (1.) The appellant, a Taxi Operators Union challenged one of the conditions attached to the contract carriage permit prohibiting to fit luggage carrier on the roof of the jeep being arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned single Judge dismissed the petition relegating the petitioner to alternate remedy under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(2.) It is well established that High Court has power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an Executive Authority from acting without jurisdiction more particularly, in case where such an action is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment. It is not necessary to tress all the judgments on the point, suffice to refer the decision of Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Mark, reported in (1998) 7 JT (SC) 243 wherein the Court reviewed almost all the cases on the point and reiterated three well established exceptions wherein writ jurisdiction does not operate as bar, inspite of existence of statutory remedy. The Court held, thus (Para 15 of AIR):- "Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by the Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged."
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel that impugned condition No. 4 of the permit restraining the contract carriage permit holders from installing or attaching a luggage carrier on a taxi jeep is illegal being arbitrary, without authority of law, unreasonable and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that such a condition is foreign to the conditions contained in Section 74. Thus, the Transport Authority has acted completely without jurisdiction in attaching such arbitrary condition.;