BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) IN this Writ Petition, the petitioner, who is a driver possessing a driving licence bearing No. 92/1987 which is valid from 6-3-1987 to 5-3-1990 authorised to ply an Autorickshaw Cab, has challenged condition Nos. 1 to 6 which are specified in the Notification dated 11-11-1987 vide annexure-A issued by the respondent and also the Resolution of the respondent passed in subject matter No. 462/87-88 vide Annexure-R1, insisting upon certain requirements to be complied with by the petitioner for being granted a contract carriage permit in respect of an Autorickshaw. ( 2 ) THE material facts of the case are these: the petitioner purchased an Autorickshaw Cab bearing Registration No. MED 1836, the model of the vehicle being 1977. A Fitness Certificate was issued by the transport authorities on 3-1-1987 and the same was valid upto 2-1 -1988. It is submitted by the petitioner that taxes have been paid upto 31-12-1987 and that the said vehicle was being operated by the petitioner under an Autorickshaw Cab permit bearing No. 981/77-78 which was valid upto 23-10-1986. According to the petitioner as the permit could not be renewed well in time, he made a fresh application for grant of contract carriage permit and the same was rejected by the Regional transport Authority, Bangalore, on 8-5-1987. The respondent issued a notification dated 11-11-1987 which was published on the notice board of the Office of the respondent to the effect that the ceiling limit on the number of Autorickshaw Cab Permits has since been removed and that in order to obtain an Autorickshaw Cab Permit, certain specified terms and conditions have to be satisfied. ( 3 ) THE conditions which have caused grievance to the petitioner are to be found in condition Nos. 1 to 6 of the aforesaid Notification dated 11-11-1987 vide Annexure-A which reads as follows :" ( i) That permit shall be granted only to owners-cum-drivers of the vehicles. For this purpose, he will have to enclose along with the application a copy of the driving licence authorising the applicant to drive Autorickshaw, obtained atleast two years prior to date of application. For this purpose, he will have to enclose along with the application a copy of the driving licence authorising the applicant to drive Autorickshaw, obtained atleast two years prior to date of application. Provided that the condition regarding driving licence shall not be applicable for physically handicapped persons (to be certified by an Officer not below the rank of a Professor in orthopeadics in any Government College or equivalent) and to widows whose deceased husband was driving licence holder for Autorickshaw. (ii) The applicant should be in possession of the vehicle in his name on the date of application or should have document to establish that he is in a position to acquire the vehicle within one month from the date of application. (iii) Applicant will have to produce ration card, a copy of the voters list or any other document in support of his declaration identity regarding the place of residence and bonafides of his application. (iv) Permits now granted shall not be transferable for a period of three years from the date of issue; (v) No person will be entitled to more than one permit. (vi) The vehicle intended to be covered in the permit shall not be more than three years old on the date of application or on the date the documents are produced for obtaining permit granted by the R. T. A. " ( 4 ) THE petitioner is affected in view of condition No. 6 which renders it impossible for him to obtain the permit since the vehicle which he owns is of 1977 model. The petitioner's case is that conditions which have been imposed under the said notification from 1 to 6 are not in accordance with law and they are arbitrary. Further contention of the petitioner is that these conditions do not find support from any of the provisions either under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') or the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Rules' ). ( 5 ) FOR the purpose of deciding the question which has arisen for consideration in this Writ petition, the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of the Act which require to be examined read as follows: "49. ( 5 ) FOR the purpose of deciding the question which has arisen for consideration in this Writ petition, the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of the Act which require to be examined read as follows: "49. Application for contract carriage permit :- An application for a permit to use one or more motor vehicles as a contract carriage or carriages (in this Chapter referred to as a contract carriage permit) shall contain the following particulars, namely : (a) the type and seating capacity of the vehicle or each of the vehicles; (b) the area for which the permit is required; (c) in the case of a motor vehicle other than a motor cab the manner in which it is claimed that the public convenience wilt be served by the vehicle ; and (d) any other particulars which may be prescribed. 50. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for contract carnage permit :- A Regional Transport Authority shall in considering an application for a contract carriage permit, have regard to the extent to which additional contract carriages may be necessary or desirable in the public interest ; and shall also take into consideration any representations which may then be made or which may previously have been made by persons already holding contract carriage permits in the region or by any local authority or police authority in the region to the effect that the number of contract carriages for which permits have already been granted is sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region or any area within the region. " ( 6 ) A reading of Section 49 of the Act shows that in an application for contract carriage permit, the applicant shall furnish particulars only regarding the type and seating capacity of the vehicle, the area of operation of the vehicle and any other particulars which may be prescribed. It could, thus, be seen that there is no statutory requirement whether to prescribe or disclose that the vehicle is more than three years old and also that the applicant has a minimum driving experience of two years. ( 7 ) IN Sub-section (d) of Section 49 of the Act, the words are "any other particulars which may be prescribed". These words, according to me, convey the meaning that the applicant has to furnish any other particulars which may be prescribed according to law. ( 7 ) IN Sub-section (d) of Section 49 of the Act, the words are "any other particulars which may be prescribed". These words, according to me, convey the meaning that the applicant has to furnish any other particulars which may be prescribed according to law. The rules which stipulate the particulars to be furnished in an application for contract carriage permit are provided under Rule 103 of the Rules. What could be prescribed under the Rules cannot be what the relevant Section under the Act itself does not contemplate. The conditions that have been imposed on an applicant for grant of contract carriage permit, as in the instant case, are nothing but conditions of eligibility for application. They are not in the nature of conditions stipulated at the time of grant of the permit. It is difficult to reconcile the provisions of Section 49 and the corresponding rules with the conditions imposed upon the applicant in respect of the driving experience of the applicant as well as the ceiling fixed on the age of the vehicle. In a situation like this, the presumption could only be that the conditions imposed are arbitrary and have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It cannot be said that a vehicle which is four years old will be more hazardous than a vehicle which is three years old. It is also difficult to accept the condition of fixing the minimum driving experience of the applicant at two years as if an applicant who has only the driving experience of one year is less suitable than an applicant having driving experience of two years. In both cases, in relation to the age of the vehicle and experience of the applicant, the assumption that the said criteria could be linked with traffic hazard, appears to me to be fallacy (sic) is. Such notions which actuated the authority to arbitrarily fix the impugned conditions, cannot be supported in law and there is no provision, as stated earlier, under the Act to empower the authority to impose such conditions which do not find a place in the statute book. Though the object of imposing such conditions is to minimise or reduce or eliminate traffic hazards, such measures can only be taken by adopting procedure in accordance with law. Unless rules are framed under valid statutory provisions, the imposition of such conditions would be impermissible. Though the object of imposing such conditions is to minimise or reduce or eliminate traffic hazards, such measures can only be taken by adopting procedure in accordance with law. Unless rules are framed under valid statutory provisions, the imposition of such conditions would be impermissible. ( 8 ) A perusal of Section 50 further shows that the Regional Transport Authority, while considering the application for contract carriage permit, is not empowered to go into the question of the experience of the applicant or the age of the vehicle in respect of which the permit is sought. ( 9 ) IT was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that every year the vehicle in respect of which the permit is sought is subjected to fitness test and as such the impugned conditions are not relevant and necessary. It was also submitted that should the authority discover any defect in the vehicle, the authority is empowered to suspend the registration pending removal of such a defect and that such a safeguard is reasonable enough to protect against traffic hazards. These contentions appear to me to be sound and they adequately insulate against the dangers for which the impugned conditions are sought to be imposed on the applicant (the petitioner ). ( 10 ) THE contention of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent is that the imposition of these conditions is in public interest and that the applicant has no right to be granted a permit automatically and further that reasonable restrictions could be imposed for grant of the permit in question. According to the learned Government Pleader, the conditions which are impugned in this Writ Petition are reasonable and that a Resolution by the competent authority preceded the issue of the notification prescribing the conditions for application for grant of contract carriage permit. ( 11 ) THE plea of public interest cannot be construed in an abstract sense. It must have a specific bearing on the object to be achieved and even to subserve public interest or promote public interest, conditions imposed should be in accordance with law. As already observed, there is no statutory rule to support the impugned conditions. There is no quarrel with the proposition that there is no right in an applicant to be granted permit on his application. As already observed, there is no statutory rule to support the impugned conditions. There is no quarrel with the proposition that there is no right in an applicant to be granted permit on his application. But, at the same time, it is equally true that arbitrary conditions should not be used to deprive the possibility of securing a permit by the applicant who otherwise would be eligible for the grant of a permit. Reasonable restrictions could be imposed in accordance with law. But, in the instant case, the conditions which are sought to be imposed are unwarranted since they are totally subjective and arbitrary. A notification, which is not in accordance with law, cannot be legitimised by a Resolution however validly made. ( 12 ) IT was also contended on behalf of the respondent that if a case is made out by the petitioner for annulling condition Nos. 1 to 6 of Annexure-A, then the entire resolution on the basis of which the notification dated 11-11-1987 was issued has to be quashed. I am unable to agree with the contention advanced for the State that condition Nos. 1 to 6 are not capable of being struck down without affecting the entire resolution and that the doctrine of severability is inapplicable. All other conditions are sustained and the respondent is at liberty to consider the application of the petitioner on the basis of the surviving conditions of eligibility. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned condition Nos. 1 to 6 contained in Annexure-A which is notification dated 11-11-1987 issued by the respondent are not valid in law and are liable to be struck-down. I, therefore, quash the said conditions for the reasons stated above and allow this Writ Petition. I direct the respondent to consider if a fresh application is made by the petitioner for grant of a contract carriage permit in respect of his autorickshaw Cab bearing Registration No. MED 1836 and model 1977 and dispose of the same in accordance with law without insisting upon condition Nos. 1 to 6 which have been struck-down in this Writ Petition. Parties to bear their own costs.