Judgment :- The Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the 1st Respondent in Lr.No.E2/54505/2007 dated 01/10/07 and to direct the 1st Respondent to grant re-registration and commercial permit for subject vehicle LML Piaggio Ape bearing Registration No.RJ-19-P-8838 belonging to the Petitioner. 2. Case of Petitioner is that she has purchased three wheel commercial Auto LML Piaggio Ape in the year 2002 in Jodhpur, Rajasthan and the vehicle was given Registration No.RJ-19-P-8838 by RTO, Jodhpur. RTO Jodhpur issued a commercial permit for the said vehicle, which was valid till 2012. 3. The Petitioner and her family members moved to Chennai. Petitioner submitted an application for re-registration of the vehicle auto LML Piaggio Ape. Since there was no response from the Respondent Petitioner had filed W.P.No.28851/2007 which was disposed of with direction to the Respondents to consider the Petitioners application for re-registration of commercial Auto LML Piaggio Ape vehicle in accordance with Sections 47 and 73 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. .4. The Petitioner presented application along with all the documents on 17.08.2007 by the impugned order dated 010. 2007. The Petitioners application was rejected on the ground that registration of new Ape range of diesel driven three wheeler three seater auto rickshaw is not permissible in view of the circular issued in D.O.LETTER.NO.68583/H3/2007 DATED 24.08.2007. 5. Earlier in writ petition filed by Chennai City Auto Consultant and Financiers Welfare Association, Justice S.Manikumar has passed an interim order that the Registering Authority shall not register new Ape range of diesel driven three wheeler auto rickshaws. Consequent on the orders passed by the High Court in the said writ petition, a meeting of the Registering Authorities of Chennai District, Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur District were called for. Pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition, Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner had issued circular D.O.LETTER.NO.68583/H3/2007 DATED 24.08.2007 to all the Registering Authorities to adhere to the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.16244/2007 to refrain from registering new Ape range of diesel driven three seater auto rickshaw to avoid pollution. 6. Main contention of the Petitioner is that the High Courts order or the said circular did not prohibit re-registration of vehicle fitted with diesel engine. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. 6. Main contention of the Petitioner is that the High Courts order or the said circular did not prohibit re-registration of vehicle fitted with diesel engine. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. R. Arumugam, mainly contended that Petitioner vehicle was already registered in Rajasthan and it is only question of re-registration and therefore the above circular would not apply. The learned counsel drawing attention of courts order in W.P.No.16244/2007. The learned counsel would further submit that the order would show that there are already number of Ape-diesel driven vehicles re-registered and plying in the city and while so Petitioners application for re-registration cannot be rejected. It was further submitted that the Petitioner is a senior citizen and that she is shouldering livelihood of the family members and therefore suitable directions is to be given to the Respondents to re-register the vehicle and issue commercial permit. .7. Based on the direction of the High Court in W.P.No.16244/2007 circular was already issued directing that commercial permit should not be issued to the vehicles fitted with diesel engine (LML Piaggio Ape vehicles) to avoid pollution. When there is a general direction not to issue commercial permit the said rule cannot be relaxed for the Petitioner. Though Petitioner claims that her case is only re-registration, so far as Tamilnadu is concerned it is only fresh registration only covered under the circular. .When general circular has been issued not to grant commercial permit to LML Piaggio Ape diesel driven vehicle absolutely there is no reason to direct the Authorities to reregister the Petitioner vehicle. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.