JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner, by way of filing the present writ petition, seeks to quash the proceeding of the first respondent in Endt.N.Dis.3406/14/2011 dated 14.09.2011 and also for a consequential direction to the first respondent to renew the permit given to the petitioner for his auto Rick Shaw bearing registration number TN 46 E 1768. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner was driving an Auto on rental basis. In the year 2006, fresh auto permits were granted. He also applied for the same after purchasing an Auto on Hire Purchase scheme. 4. The first respondent, vide proceeding R.No.18368/A3/2006 dated 14.09.2006, issued permit in respect of Contract Carriage to carry 3+1 passengers, i.e., 3 passengers and one driver. The permit was sanctioned to the petitioner to ply on all roads within the radius of 30 Kms. from the Centre point of Perambalur for a period of five years, i.e. from 15.09.2006 to 14.09.2011. 5. On expiry of the permit period, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same, but to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 14.09.2011, rejecting his application, seeking renewal of permit, as if the petitioner seeks for a fresh permit. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 14.09.2011. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was passed without application of mind. 7. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, by producing a written instruction dated 29.09.2011 of the first respondent in this regard, would submit that the second respondent issued a letter dated 30.01.2004, permitting to register the Sun Diesel carrier having seating capacity 3+1 in all as LMV three wheeler as non-transport only and not for issuing a contract carriage permit in the category of Auto Rickshaw. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 9. The petitioner was issued a permit for contract carriage by the second respondent in the year 2006 for a period of five years. Since the permit expired on 14.09.2011, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same for further period of five years to ply Contract Carriage vehicle. 10. It is not known on what basis the first respondent issued the letter dated 30.01.2004 that the permit should not be given for this type of vehicle for contract carriage. Since the permit expired on 14.09.2011, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same for further period of five years to ply Contract Carriage vehicle. 10. It is not known on what basis the first respondent issued the letter dated 30.01.2004 that the permit should not be given for this type of vehicle for contract carriage. The said letter is not placed before this Court. Even if the second respondent issued such letter, that could be applicable for issuing fresh permits and that the same could not be applied for renewal of permit. 11. In the case on hand, the petitioner was already granted permit to ply Auto Rickshaw in respect of contract carriage and hence, the renewal of permit could not be denied by the respondent, based on the letter dated 30.01.2004 of the second respondent. Otherwise, the letter dated 30.01.2004 of the second respondent would take away the livelihood of the petitioner in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. 12. For the reasons stated above, the order of the first respondent dated 14.09.2011 is quashed and the first respondent is directed to grant renewal of permit as Contract Carriage, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is disposed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.