Permit grants must comply with binding territorial limits, and existing operators may challenge illegal authorisations in writ proceedings.

Existing operators and permit holders may challenge a permit grant in writ jurisdiction where the grant is alleged to contravene statutory provisions or binding governmental directions. The permits for five-seater autos had to conform to Government Orders issued under the Motor Vehicles Act and were confined to the district headquarters; operation beyond that territorial limit was not authorised. Even though the applications were made under the Act and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, the grants were treated as resting on the Government Orders, so departures from those limits could not be saved by the general provisions invoked. Grants beyond the authorised area were therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether existing operators and permit holders had locus standi to maintain the writ appeals and writ petitions challenging the grant of five-seater auto permits; (ii) whether the transport authorities were empowered to issue such permits beyond the district headquarters contemplated by the Government Orders; (iii) whether the grants could nonetheless be sustained under the Act and the Rules.

Issue (i): Whether existing operators and permit holders had locus standi to maintain the writ appeals and writ petitions challenging the grant of five-seater auto permits.

Analysis: A third party is not barred in every case from challenging a permit grant. The maintainability of a writ petition depends on whether the grant is alleged to be contrary to statutory provisions or governmental directions, and not on a blanket rule excluding existing operators. Where illegality or violation of binding directions is pleaded, the challenge can be entertained.

Conclusion: The challenge was maintainable, and the existing operators and permit holders were entitled to maintain the proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the transport authorities were empowered to issue such permits beyond the district headquarters contemplated by the Government Orders.

Analysis: The Government Orders issued under the powers traceable to Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 authorised permits only in the district headquarters. The grant of permits for operation outside that territorial limit was not in conformity with the Government Orders. A town falling within a 30-km radius could not be treated as the district headquarters for this purpose.

Conclusion: The transport authorities were not empowered to issue permits outside the district headquarters prescribed by the Government Orders.

Issue (iii): Whether the grants could nonetheless be sustained under the Act and the Rules.

Analysis: Although applications were made under the Act and Rule 170 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the grants were in substance made with reference to the Government Orders and not as independent exercises of power under those provisions. Grants issued beyond the authorised area were therefore outside the ambit of the governing directions and could not be saved by reference to the general provisions relied on.

Conclusion: The impugned grants could not be sustained to the extent they authorised operation beyond the district headquarters; only the limited extent upheld by the Court survived.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded in part: the grants beyond the authorised territorial limit were invalid, while the proceedings attacking the unrelated permits did not survive for consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A permit grant made under binding governmental directions must conform to the territorial limits and conditions of those directions, and a third party may challenge such a grant in writ jurisdiction where illegality or departure from the governing policy is alleged.

---