JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. T.K. Roy, learned Advocate General along with Mr. A. Ghosh, learned advocate for the Respondents. 2. This writ proceeding has been instituted by the All Tripura Vehicle Owners' Representatives Association which claimed to be a registered Society and a representative body of the vehicle owners authorized representatives. The Petitioner has claimed that the members of the Association have been engaged in the profession of representing the vehicle owners in performing the various works related to grant and renewal of licence, permits, registration of vehicles etc. which they used to do as agents of the vehicle owners. This was the only source of livelihood of the members of the Association and the practice of getting those works done through the agents was an old and accepted system. The Association has enlisted fifty members who have been working within the office premises of the Deputy Transport Commissioner and enjoyed credibility of all concerned. But in the month of August, 2003 the Respondent directed the Petitioner to demolish or remove its office situated within the office complex of the second Respondent where the vehicle owners used to meet the members of the Association in order to engage them to do the above noted works on their behalf. However, in order to maintain peace and amity, the Petitioner raised no dispute and shifted to their office to a nearby rented house. But the second Respondent remained vindictive against the Petitioner Association for reasons not known and adopted various means to prevent the members of the Petitioner from transacting business on behalf of the vehicle owners in the office of the said Respondent. Even a Police case was instituted by that Respondent against the Petitioner following which eleven members of the Association were arrested but finally investigation ended without any formal accusation against the members of the Association. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that by the above act of the second Respondent the fundamental right of the members of the Association enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution by taking away their livelihood stood violated calling for interference of this Court with a direction to the said Respondent to allow the members of the Association to perform lawful work as agent or representative of the motor vehicle owners without any obstruction. 3. 3. The State Respondents resisted the above claims of the Petitioner contending, inter alia, that the members of the said Association are, in fact, touts and middlemen who had been engaged in unlawful activities in the office premises of the Transport authority in connivance with the staff working in the office of the second Respondent and thus harassing and humiliating the vehicle owners who were not allowed to transact business on their own but forced to engage those touts and middlemen for getting their works done. It is the specific case of the State Respondents that no owner or operator of the vehicles has ever approached the second Respondent that they intend to be represented by the members of the Petitioner-Association for registration, grant or renewal of licence of their vehicles or for any other work and as a matter of fact when the office of the Association was forced to be shifted and the Respondents came down heavily on the brokers and middlemen several representative body of the vehicle owners supported the move and requested the second Respondent to continue with the tirade and demolish the vicious caucus. Such representations came from South Tripura Bus Owners Association, Bus Unit, affiliated to CITU, Tripura Auto Rickshaw Workers' Union, Tripura Truck Operators' Association and Mini Bus, Jeep and Taxi Drivers Syndicate. In a letter to the Transport Minister, All Tripura Vehicle Owners' Syndicate on 7.11.2004 urged upon the competent authority to do away with the presence of the brokers in the office of the second Respondent who in collusion with the dealing staff of that office have been engaging in illegal activities by forcing the vehicle owners to get their jobs done through those brokers only on hefty payment. The State Respondents further contended that an individual member can certainly represent a vehicle owner if duly authorized but when it takes the form of a profession after forming an Association and establishing its office, then the question that inevitably arises whether such a profession can sustain without any legal support. The State Respondents further contended that an individual member can certainly represent a vehicle owner if duly authorized but when it takes the form of a profession after forming an Association and establishing its office, then the question that inevitably arises whether such a profession can sustain without any legal support. The Motor Vehicles Act or the rules framed thereunder or for that matter any other law does not provide that a group of persons forming an Association can open an office, make a clandestine arrangement with the staff in the Transport office dealing with the matters relating to registration, licence and permits of vehicles and can continue the business for gain particularly when the vehicle owners have not explicitly approached the Transport authorities to allow the members of the Petitioner-Association to represent them in any such activity. 4. When the interim prayer of the Petitioner seeking a direction to the second Respondent not to create any direct or indirect obstruction in performing lawful work relating to driving licence, registration, tax payment, permit and fitness of vehicle of the owners and allow them to work freely unless their work is found to be illegal undo-any law came to be heard on 9.12.2004, this Court (Vaiphei, J.) after hearing the parties elaborately dealt with the issues raised in the writ petition and rejected the interim prayer after making observation that the grievances of the Petitioner-Association as projected in the writ petition do not appear to be genuine. It has further been held. No right of the members of the Association appears to have been affected in any manner by the impugned action of the state Respondents. Applications for licence, registration, renewal of licence etc. can be made only by the vehicle owners in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. For applying those documents, it is not necessary for the vehicle owners to approach any Association including the Petitioner-Association. If any individual owner cannot undertake such exercise, he can authorize any individual by executing a deed of power of attorney. The law does not require any assistance of any association for undertaking such exercise. Neither any right is conferred upon the Petitioner-Association nor any duty cast upon any Association to under-take such exercise on behalf of any vehicle owner. 5. The above observation of this Court as a matter of fact touched the very crux of the present controversy. The law does not require any assistance of any association for undertaking such exercise. Neither any right is conferred upon the Petitioner-Association nor any duty cast upon any Association to under-take such exercise on behalf of any vehicle owner. 5. The above observation of this Court as a matter of fact touched the very crux of the present controversy. It is the specific case of the Petitioner-Association that by denying entry to the members of the Association into the office of the second Respondent to act on behalf of the vehicle owners a serious inconvenience has been caused as the latter, for various reasons cannot act on their own. But, no such grievance or difficulty or inconvenience has ever been conveyed by the vehicle owners either to the second Respondent or to any other authority concerned and on this particular issue the petition contains no averment as to why there is no reaction from the owners against illegal action of the second Respondent. When the Petitioner claims that its members are the authorized representatives of the vehicle owners, nowhere in the writ petition there is any averment as to who were those owners who have engaged the members of the Association to represent them and whether they have approached the second Respondent to allow the members of the Association to act as their agents. The writ petition is completely silent about the vehicle owners, their grievance or their approach to any authority. On the contrary, a good number of representative body of the vehicle owners approached the Transport authority to firmly handle the brokers and middlemen who have been preventing the genuine owners from doing their work in the office of the Transport authority and compelling them to pay the brokers and middlemen. Because of this reason, this Court in the interim order expressed the view that the grievances of the members of the Association are not genuine. 6. Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner herein took me through the provisions of Sections 182, 187 and 217 of the Contract Act in order to sustain a view that an agent, such as the members of the Association, has a right to represent the principal (vehicle owners) in doing the works which are required to be done by the owner/principal in the office of the Transport authority. This submission of Mr. This submission of Mr. Biswas is undoubtedly the correct position of law and in that view of the matter a member of the Petitioner-Association if duly authorized or engaged as an agent can certainly represent the principal/vehicle owner. But these provision of the Contract Act do not permit a group of people to form an Association and then claim that they are the representatives or agents of the vehicle owners through whom the works relating to driving licence, registration, tax payment, permit and fitness of the vehicle of the owners have to be done. The members of the Petitioner-Association having no legal support to engage in any such profession cannot be allowed to do those works for gain unless specifically authorized by the vehicle owners individually to the satisfaction of the Transport authority and unless the owners of the respective vehicle approach that authority to allow their agents to do the jobs on their behalf. 7. For the discussions made above, I find no reason to take any view different from what has been expressed by this Court (Vaiphei, J.) in the interim order dated 9.12.2004 only adding that the Petitioner-Association or its members has no legal or fundamental right to engage in the profession of representing the vehicle owners for the above noted works for remuneration unless any of its members is duly and specifically authorized by any vehicle owner to represent him to the satisfaction of the second Respondent who may for the purpose of keeping at bay unauthorized and undeserved elements impose reasonable restrictions. 8. This being the view I have taken the prayer made in the present writ petition deserves no consideration and consequently this writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.