Judgment :- 1. The writ petition, by an association of the owners of autorickshaws in the Quilon District, challenges Ext. P1 notification as denuded of jurisdiction. The notification is one issued by the State Transport Authority under S.44(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It prescribes the rate of hire charges and detention charges that could be collected from the passengers by the autorickshaws. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the power under S.44(3) does not extend to the fixation of the fares for the autorickshaws, as that power is subject to the restrictive conditions contained therein. It is pointed out that only clause (d) of S.44(3) is applicable, which is: "to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed." 'Prescribed' means prescribed by the Rules. The relevant rule is R.231 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961 and it reads. "231. Taxi-meter (1) When a Regional Transport Authority requires that a motor cab shall be fitted with a taxi-meter, the taxi meter shall be of a pattern approved by the Stats Transport Authority and shall be fitted in conformity with any instructions that may be issued by the State Transport Authority in this regard." (emphasis Supplied) R.231(3) seeks to enforce the conditions of the permit of a motor cab. It is argued that an autorickshaw does not come within the definition of "motor cab'. The term 'motor cab' is defined in S.2(15) of the Act. It reads: "motor cab" means any motor vehicle constructed, adapted or used to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver, for hire or reward;" (emphasis supplied) Autorickshaw is defined in R.2(bb), which reads: "Autorickshaw" means a motor vehicle constructed, adapted or used to carry not more than four passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward and having less than four wheels." (emphasis supplied) 3. On a proper and conjoint reading of the relevant rules, it is evident that an autorickshaw will be a motor cab, as the autorickshaw is a motor vehicle adapted to carry not more than six passengers. All autorickshaws with the limitation of passenger capacity below four will thus come within the definition of motor cab. The converse is not true. The moment the vehicle is having more than three wheels, it will cease to be an autorickshaw; but it will continue to be a motor cab. All autorickshaws with the limitation of passenger capacity below four will thus come within the definition of motor cab. The converse is not true. The moment the vehicle is having more than three wheels, it will cease to be an autorickshaw; but it will continue to be a motor cab. The maximum passengers that could be carried in an autorickshaw will be four. The moment the motor vehicle is found to be one which can carry more than four passengers, it will cease to be an autorickshaw but will be a motor vehicle if the passenger capacity is not more than six. In other words, an autorickshaw though it has only three wheels and can carry only four passengers, will be a motor cab as defined in S.2(15). In that view of the matter, it will be covered by R.231. It will then follow that the notification Ext. P1 will be within the competence of the authorities. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in purported enforcement of Ext. P1, the authorities seize the vehicles and detain them for unjustifiably long time, causing serious hardship, and prejudice to the owners of the autorickshaws. It is not necessary to go into the hypothetical grievances, since no specific complaint has been raised in the original petition. 5. Counsel further submitted that the drivers are not likely to commit any breach of the Rules and that even if they commit any such breach, the penal consequences should not be visited on the owners. That is also too premature a complaint at this stage. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Dismissed.