B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel, who have appeared for petitioners in each of these Writ petitions and also the learned Government pleader for the Transport appearing on behalf of the respondents. ( 2 ) SINCE common question is involved, allthese matters are taken up together for disposal. ( 3 ) THE facts, in brief, are that thepetitioners herein are the owners of the respective three wheeler auto rickshaws, some of which having been obtained under hypothecation. Thereafter, the said vehicles were registered. However, at the time of registration, a specific condition has been imposed in the very permit granted by the respondents, in column no. 6, meant for route/area for which the permit is valid, as "to ply outside the limits of Municipal area, warangal, Hanumakonda and Khazipet and within a radius of 60 KMs from the residence of owner excluding prohibited roads". It is this condition which is sought to be challenged in all these Writ Petitions, inter alia, on the ground that the respondents have no power or authority or jurisdiction for imposing such restriction under the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder, and further it also violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the constitution of India. It was further pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that except running the auto rickshaws and making livelihood, the petitioners have no other source. Having purchased the said vehicles with financial assistance, they cannot possibly be restricted in their area of operation, more so, when the petitioners themselves are residents of the locality situated in Warangal, Hunumakonda and khazipet. It is further contended that in respect of the permits granted earlier for such contract carriages, there was no restriction and all those auto rickshaws are plying, and whereas for no fault of the petitioners such condition is imposed without any basis or support legally. Hence, these writ Petitions. It is further contended that in respect of the permits granted earlier for such contract carriages, there was no restriction and all those auto rickshaws are plying, and whereas for no fault of the petitioners such condition is imposed without any basis or support legally. Hence, these writ Petitions. ( 4 ) CONTESTING the petitioners claim, therespondents in the counter affidavits contended that having regard to the heavy number of auto-rickshaws plying in those towns, the District Collector and Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, Warangal has taken a decision to register the vehicles with such condition with effect from 01-11-2002 and thus, prohibiting entry or plying of such vehicles in the areas covered by Municipal area of Warangal, hanumakonda and Khazipet in exercise of powers under Section 74 (3) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. It was contended that under Rule 177 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles rules, 1989, the Regional Transport authority has got ample powers to levy such condition. Therefore, it was submitted that by taking into consideration the induction of large number of auto rickshaws and due to increase of accidents in towns, such decision has to be taken by the District collector and Chairman of the Regional transport Authority, Warangal, which is in the public interest and the restriction was imposed to avoid accidents and to maintain free flow of traffic. Hence, these Writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners submitted that having given permits, no such restrictions can be imposed, more so, to the detriment of the very purpose for which the petitioners have purchased the vehicles which is to make their livelihood, and it is very difficult for the petitioners to ply the vehicles with such restrictions. In support, reliance was placed on provisions of Section 74 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, hereafter the act), and also Rule 177 of the A. P. Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, hereafter the Rules), to contend that the restriction imposed is outside the scope of the authority. In support, reliance was placed on provisions of Section 74 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, hereafter the act), and also Rule 177 of the A. P. Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, hereafter the Rules), to contend that the restriction imposed is outside the scope of the authority. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleaderappearing on behalf of the respondents sought to sustain the said restrictions on the ground that it is more in the interest of public and with a view to reduce the accidents and cause easy flow of traffic, for which a decision has been taken by the competent authorities and therefore, there is no illegality in imposing the restriction. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the submissions madeand on perusal of the material, the ultimate and the only question which falls for consideration in all these Writ Petitions is as to whether the impugned action on the part of the respondents herein in imposing the restriction at the time of registration of the vehicles in regard to the plying of the vehicles outside the limits of municipal area of Warangal, Hanumakonda and Khazipet and also within a radius of 60 KMs from the residence of owner excluding prohibited roads, is valid? ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute to the fact that thepetitioners, having purchased their respective vehicles and most of them with the assistance from the financial institutions agreeing to repay in instalments, got the vehicles registered with the respondents herein. However, while registering, the competent authority viz. the Regional transport Authority concerned, imposed condition in column no. 6 of the permit, describing the route/area for which the permit is valid, to the effect that the vehicles should ply outside the limits of Municipal area of Warangal, Humankonda and khazipet and within a radius of 60 KMs from the residence of owner excluding prohibited roads. It is relevant to note that except to the extent of making a challenge as against the imposing of such condition in the permit, issued under Rule 174 (3) of the Rules, in respect of which all those vehicles which fall within the definition of a contract carriage, none of the petitioners has made any challenge as against the very grant of permit nor have they taken any proceedings either by way of appeal or otherwise as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. !t cannot be said that the petitioners do not have any right of remedy of appeal even to make a challenge as against any conditions imposed thereunder. There is no proper explanation forthcoming on behalf of the petitioners as to why and how they could not avail such remedies available under law. ( 9 ) BE that as it may, it is equally relevantto note that these restrictions are being imposed by the respondents with effect from 01-11 -2002 especially in view of the decision taken by the District Collector and Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, warangal, prohibiting the entry of plying of the vehicles within the municipal limits area, as per Section 74 (3) of the Act. There is no dispute that prior to such decision or even the date as mentioned above i. e. 01-11-2002, all similar such vehicles have been registered without any such condition and they are being plied unhindered. The reason shown on behalf of the respondents for adding such condition is having regard to the spurt in the number of auto rickshaws in the town and also to avoid accidents and ultimately for enabling free flow of traffic. There is no serious dispute in regard to the specific reason averred in the counter affidavit and the basis for taking such decision by the competent authority. ( 10 ) BEFORE entering into the question, it isrelevant here to note the substantive provision under Section 74 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:"74. Grant of contract carriage permit: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), a Regional Transport authority may, on an application made to it under Section 73, grant a contract carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permits: provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area not specified in the application. (2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a contract carriage permit, may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely: (i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area or on a specified route or routes; (ii) that except in accordance with specified conditions, no contract of hiring, other than an extension or modification of a subsisting contract, may be entered into ousted the specified area; (iii) the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the vehicles, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons; (iv) the conditions subject to which goods may be carried in any contract carriage in addition to, or to the exclusion of, passengers; (v) that, in the case of motorcabs, specified fares or rates of fares shall be charged and a copy of the fare table shall be exhibited on the vehicles; (vi) that, in case of vehicles other than motorcabs, specified rates of hiring not exceeding specified maximum shall be charged; (vii) that in the case of motorcabs, a specified weight of passengers luggage shall be carried free of charge, and that the charge, if any, for any luggage in excess thereof shall be at a specified rate; (viii) that in the case of motorcabs, a taximeter shall be fitted and maintained in proper working order, if prescribed; (ix) that the Regional Transport authority, may, after giving notice of not less than one month,- (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions (x) that the conditions of permit shall not be departed from save with the approval of the Regional Transport authority; (xi) that specified standards of comfort and cleanliness shall be maintained in the vehicles; (xii) that, except in the circumstances of exceptional nature, the plying of the vehicles or carrying of the passengers shall not be refused; (xiii) any other conditions which may be prescribed. (3) (a) The State Government shall, if so directed by the Central government, having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of contract carriages generally or of any specified type, as may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs. (b) Where the number of contract carriages are fixed under clause (a), the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for the grant, of permit in respect of any such contract carriage, have regard to the following matters, namely: (i) financial stability of the applicant; (ii) Satisfactory performance as a contract carriage operator including payment of tax if the applicant is or has been an operator of contract carriages; and (iii) Such other matters as may be prescribed by the State government: provided that, other conditions being equal, preference shall be given to applications for permits from- (i) the Indian Tourism Development corporation; (ii) State Tourism Development corporations; (iii) State Tourism Departments; (iv) State Transport undertaking; (v) Co-operative societies registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment for the time being in force; (vi) Ex-servicemen. " ( 11 ) ON a bare reading of the aforesaidprovision, it amply makes clear that the regional Transport Authority has ample powers to grant contract carriage permit by adding any or more of the conditions as pointed out, in the permit. Of the conditions as mentioned therein, it also includes that the restriction can be made for use of the vehicle in a specified area or specified route or routes. Therefore, having regard to such clear provision enabling the Regional transport Authority for adding condition, it cannot be said that the said authority has no power or authority or jurisdiction to do so. Further, even under clause (3) (a) of the section, ample power is conferred on the government that taking into consideration the road conditions and other relevant matters, it can impose any restriction in regard to the limit of the number of contract carriages or generally of any specified type and also in regard to their operation on city routes in towns, etc. ( 12 ) RULE 177 of the A. P. Motor Vehiclesrules, 1989, reads as follows;"grant of permits to Autorickshaws: The Regional Transport authority of any one region may grant a permit in respect an Auto-rickshaw and motor Cycle Taxi to ply as a contract carriage to be valid for an area lying within a radius of 60 kms. from the principal place of business of the registered owner without the counter signature of the Regional Transport authority or Regional Transport authorities of the other region or regions in which the said area may partly lie: provided that where the principal place of business aforesaid is a municipal town or city the area to be permitted shall be computed from the limits of the municipality as notified under the andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. " ( 13 ) UNDER this Rule, once again theregional Transport Authority has been conferred with ample authority to add any restriction in respect of plying of contract carriage within the routes of 60 KMs from the place of business of registered owner without counter signature of the authorities as mentioned therein. ( 14 ) EXCEPT making sweeping submissions that the respondents ought not to have imposed any such conditions and also going to the extent of contending that such restriction runs contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, no specific provision is brought to the notice in support of their contention. Whereas the provisions as mentioned above, specifically contemplate that similar such restrictions can validly be made by the authorities concerned. ( 15 ) FURTHER, it cannot be said that the impugned action is not innovative in its nature without any foundation therefor. According to the respondents, the decision had to be taken by the District Collector and the authorities concerned, by taking note of the heavy increase in the number of vehicles and occurrence of accidents. In their opinion, such restrictions would enable free flow of traffic and avoid accidents. It is also to be noted that with regard to the said decision or the influencing reasons, there is no serious challenge by the petitioners. In view of the same, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out their case to show that such restriction goes in any way outside the scope of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In view of the same, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out their case to show that such restriction goes in any way outside the scope of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In the circumstances, it is to be held that imposition of such restriction in regard to plying of auto rickshaws, is valid and sustainable. I do not find any merits in these Writ Petitions. ( 16 ) THE Writ Petitions are, accordingly dismissed. No costs.