Order Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company having its office at Gadag. It is an authorized dealer for vehicles manufactured by M/s Piaggio Vehicles Private Limited for Gadag District. Its operational territories are Gadag and Koppal Districts for sales, service and spares of vehicles manufactured by the said company. The petitioner is said to have invested huge amounts to establish its place of business as a dealer in several categories of vehicles manufactured by M/s Piaggio Private Limited. The same include 3 wheeler and 4 wheeler cargo vehicles and 3 wheeler autorickshaws locally known as “Tum Tum” vehicles, which are said to be much in demand in rural areas. The vehicles in question are manufactured after obtaining the necessary prior approval from the Automative Research Association of India (Hereinafter referred to as “ARAI”, for brevity) as required under the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred as “CMV Rules”, for brevity). 3. The manufacturer namely Piaggio has addressed a communication to the Transport Commissioner, State of Karnataka, requesting him to approve the registration of 3 wheeler cargo and passenger vehicles, enclosing the certificates issued by ARAI as regards compliance with the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and road worthiness. Pursuant to the communication, the Deputy Commissioner has accorded permission and approval, dated 20/05/2010, for the registration of the vehicles across Karnataka State. 4. However, respondent No.3 is said to have issued a communication dated 01/10/2013, informing the petitioner herein that applications for registration of vehicles with a overhang of 450mm would not be entertained after 01/11/2013. The decision is said to have been taken by the Regional Transport Authority under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Gadag, at a meeting dated 13/09/2013. In this regard the petitioner is said to have filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.84138/2013 seeking quashing of the order dated 01/10/2013. The petition was said to have been disposed of, directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of approaching the State Transport Authority. The petitioner, thereafter, is said to have made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag, seeking permission to register the vehicles. The same having been rejected, the petitioner is said to have filed a revision petition before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal which again was dismissed by an order dated 22/03/2014. The petitioner, thereafter, is said to have made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag, seeking permission to register the vehicles. The same having been rejected, the petitioner is said to have filed a revision petition before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal which again was dismissed by an order dated 22/03/2014. Aggrieved by the same and non registration and refusal to register the vehicles, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal has rejected the petition of the petitioner merely on the ground that there was no locus standi to the petitioner to question the decision of the authorities which prohibits the registration of vehicles with a overhang of 450 mm, and if at all it is the manufacturer of the vehicle who may be aggrieved and the petitioner claiming to be a dealer of such vehicles, has no such locus standi. 6. In this regard, the learned counsel would submit that the very survival of the business of the petitioner depends on the sale of vehicles and on the refusal of registration of the vehicles, The petitioner’s business would come to a stand still and therefore is an aggrieved party and would necessarily have the locus standi to question the decision of the authorities. Consequently, it is pointed out that the decision taken by the Authority is without jurisdiction as it is not traceable to any provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As already pointed out, the competent authority under the CMV Rules is the ARAI which prescribes the standards and specifications of vehicles that would be manufactured and the said authority having approved the manufacture of the vehicles with a over hang of 450 mm, it would not confer jurisdiction on the Authority, which has now decided, not to register the vehicles. Notwithstanding that it is duly certified by the competent authority as being road worthy and therefore is permitted to be plied on the road. It is pointed out that even in terms of the Rules namely Rule 93(6) of the CMV Rules, the overhang shall not exceed 60% of the wheel base, and hence there is no violation of the Rule. It is contended that in the instant case on hand, overhang does not exceed 40%. It is pointed out that even in terms of the Rules namely Rule 93(6) of the CMV Rules, the overhang shall not exceed 60% of the wheel base, and hence there is no violation of the Rule. It is contended that in the instant case on hand, overhang does not exceed 40%. The sole reason for non-registration on the footing that overhang exceeds 450mm is without reference to any legal provision. Hence, seeks that the impugned orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to register the vehicles. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate, who has filed statement of objections on behalf of the respondents, would seek to contend that the Authority has taken a decision to prevent registration of the vehicles having regard to the large scale misuse whereby the said vehicles in particular, are routinely over-loaded. There are 265 cases registered involving such violation and it is, in order to prevent, such large scale misuse of the vehicles that the Authority has taken the decision. It is contended that this is in view of the public safety and therefore, the order cannot be said to be violative of any fundamental right of the petitioner. As human life is endangered and it is with that object and intention, that the authority has passed the impugned order. 8. It is also pointed out that the Authority is enabled under Section 74 of the MV Act to impose such conditions, as may be permissible, to issue permits for vehicles and therefore under a general power, whereby the authority is enabled to take a decision either to issue a permit or not to issue a permit, in view of public safety, a decision having been taken not to permit vehicles with an overhang of 450mm, there is no infirmity and hence seeks that the petitions be dismissed. 9. In view of the above contentions, the point for consideration is as to Whether vehicles, which are duly certified by the competent authority as being road worthy, can be denied registration on the footing that it endangers public safety and that the intention of the Authority in taking such a decision, not to register such vehicles with a overhang of 450mm is traceable to any power in law. But whether the same would be within jurisdiction of the Authority. 10. But whether the same would be within jurisdiction of the Authority. 10. The contention that there are a large number of cases particularly in Gadag district whereby the vehicles in question are routinely over loaded and hence, in order to protect human life and to prevent accidents on account of over loading, the said restriction having been imposed may be sufficient reason to enable the Authority to take such a decision and the further circumstance that there is no such prohibition in other districts, where identical vehicles are routinely registered and are plied on the road would also indicate a discrimination which cannot be countenanced or permitted. Therefore the remedy lies, in the manufacturer being called upon to restrict the overhang to a limit or to any particular extent. The competent Authority to decide on this aspect would be the ARAI and the Central Government which together would decide as to the safety margin that is permissible in providing any overhang. Therefore, the Transport Authority notwithstanding its good intentions, having taken a decision in this regard would override the other provisions of law which come into play in deciding as to the design parameters of a motor vehicle, which is beyond the competence of the Regional Transport Authority. 11. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner would have no locus standi to present the petition, is also not a tenable ground, as the very business of the petitioner is affected, if, there is refusal to register the vehicles which are sold by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders at Annexures “F, J and K” are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to register and permit the vehicle in question to be used on road.