JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Kamrup (Metro), imposing a ban on the operation of school buses and city buses which have attained the age of 15 years or more and a similar ban in respect of operation of share taxis which have attained the age of 10 years, the petitioners are before this Court assailing the said decision of the Regional Transport Authority [hereinafter referred to as the RTA, Kamrup (Metro)] taken in the meeting held on 07.12.2013 as well as the consequent Government Notification dated 04.03.2014. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the aforementioned writ petitions may be noticed as follows. In a meeting held in the office chamber of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), the RTA, Kamrup(Metro) on 07.12.2013, a number of decisions aimed at regulating the public transport system in the Kamrup (Metro) area were taken. Accordingly, under agenda item No 8 a decision was taken by the RTA to impose a ban on operation of school buses, city buses and share taxis (trekkers etc.) which have attained a certain age. The minutes of the meeting pertaining to the agenda item No.8 is quoted herein below :- “AGENDA ITEM NO.8 Discussions on imposing permit condition on the age of school buses, city buses and shared taxis (trekker etc.) The meeting involved a discussion on the physical condition of school buses, city buses and shared taxis (trekkers etc.). The following are the main concerns : The physical condition of most of these PSVs are very deteriorated/dilapidated. Passengers’ safety is at risk. Aesthetics of our city has been jeopardized by these age old vehicles. Other commuters and pedestrians safety is also threatened. In view of the above it was decided that no vehicle over 15 years old shall be permitted to operate as school buses or city buses. The vehicles which have attained this age limit of 15 years or more and are still currently plying will be given a period of 6 months to be replaced. The new vehicles should compulsorily have a GPS. In case of shared taxis which have attained an age of 10 years, it will be required to replace the vehicle with any other LMV barring trekkers and Tata Spacio. The new vehicle should compulsorily have a GPS and fare meter installed.” 3. The new vehicles should compulsorily have a GPS. In case of shared taxis which have attained an age of 10 years, it will be required to replace the vehicle with any other LMV barring trekkers and Tata Spacio. The new vehicle should compulsorily have a GPS and fare meter installed.” 3. Thereafter, the Government of Assam in the Transport Department had issued a Notification dated 04.03.2014 imposing certain special conditions on the issuance of permit for the city buses and school buses aged more than 15 years as well as share taxis which had attained the age of 10 years or more. By the said notification an option has been given to the permit holders to replace the old vehicles by bringing in new vehicles except light motor vehicles of the make of “trekker” and “Tata Spacio”. The notification dated 04.03.2014 is quoted herein below for ready reference :- “GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT : DISPUR NOTIFICATION Dated Dispur the 4th March, 2014 No.TMV.31/2014/25 : Whereas the Sub-Section (2) under section 72 and Sub-Section (2) under section 74 provide the provisions to impose certain conditions attached to both Stage Carriage and Contract Carriage Permits as laid down under the Sub-Section in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and whereas RTA Kamrup (Metro) in their meeting held on 7th December, 2013 has a discussion on the physical condition of school buses, city buses and shared taxis (trekkers etc.). The following are the main concerns : The physical condition of most of these Public Service Vehicles (PSVs) is not satisfactory. Passengers’ safety is a matter of concern due to their condition. Plying of such vehicles in the city projects it in bad light apart from being hazardous to commuters and pedestrians. In view of the above it was decided that no vehicle over 15 years old shall be permitted to operate as school buses or city bus. The owners of vehicles which have attained this age limit of 15 years or more and are still currently plying will be given a period of 6 months to be replaced. The new vehicle should compulsorily have a GPS. In case of shared taxis which have attained an age of 10 years, it will be required to replace the vehicle with any other Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) barring trekkers and Tata Spacios. The new vehicles should compulsorily have a GPS and fare meter installed. The new vehicle should compulsorily have a GPS. In case of shared taxis which have attained an age of 10 years, it will be required to replace the vehicle with any other Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) barring trekkers and Tata Spacios. The new vehicles should compulsorily have a GPS and fare meter installed. Considering the above and the prevailing condition of Traffic Hazards, tremendous growth of vehicular population and in order to prevent road rage and mishaps and provide adequate road safety to the school children and travelling public, the Govt. feels it necessary to impose certain conditions attached to both Stage Carriage and Contract Carriage permits as resolved by the RTA Kamrup(Metro). It may be mentioned that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in WP(C) No.38181/92 has also observed that when the power to impose conditions that are reasonable and such power is traceable to the Act itself, it cannot be said that such power exercised by the Authority is beyond its powers. In view of the above, all the Regional Transport Authorities are hereby authorized to impose conditions as resolved by RTA, Kamrup(Metro) in their respective jurisdictions. The RTAs will issue orders accordingly and report compliance to Government. Sd/- V. S. Bhaskar Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Transport Department.” 4. The writ petitioner in WP(C) No.206/2014, viz. All Assam Motor Transport Association, is a registered society constituted by the owners of Mini City Buses, Deluxe Express City Buses and Share Taxis including the Trekkers and Tata Spacio. WP(C) No.495/2014 has been filed by two petitioners viz. All Guwahati Share Taxi Owners Association and Greater Guwahati Share Taxi Owner’s Association, both registered societies constituted by the owners of “ Trekker” and “Tata Spacio” vehicles holding permits to operate the said vehicles as stage carriage, popularly known as share taxis. The said petitioners had initially approached this court assailing the aforementioned decision taken by the RTA, Kamrup in the meeting held on 07.12.2013. During the pendency of WP(C) No.495/2014 the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department, had issued the notification dated 04.03.2014 giving effect to the aforementioned decision of the RTA, Kamrup (Metro), which had necessitated the filing of WP(C) No.1678/2014 by the petitioners in WP(C) No.495/2014 challenging the said notification. 5. I have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. 5. I have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Choudhury learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(c) No 206 of 2014 as well as Mr. I. Choudhury learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioners in WP(C) No.495/2014 and WP(C) No.1678/2014. I have also heard Mr. D. Saikia, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 as well as Mr. G. Sharma, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1. 6. Assailing the impugned decision of the RTA authorities as well as the subsequent Government notification dated 04.03.2014 Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submits that the power to fix the age of a motor vehicles is reserved for the Central Government under the provisions of Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) and the State Governments have not been vested with any authority to fix the age of the vehicles under the Act of 1988. Notwithstanding the same the State Respondents have issued the impugned notification practically fixing the age of the city buses and share taxis, there by affecting the rights of the members of the petitioner association. Challenging the vires of the impugned notification dated 04.03.2014 the learned senior counsel submits that the State Government does not have the legislative competence to make any rule fixing the age of a vehicles as the said field is reserved for the Central Government under Section 59 of the Act of 1988.Therefore, submits Mr. Choudhury, the RTA, Kamrup (Metro) did not have any authority under the law to take a decision fixing the operable age of the vehicles. In such view of the matter, submits Mr. Choudhury, the resolution dated 7-12-2013 in agenda item No 8 as well as the consequent notification dated 04.03.2014 being contrary to law, the same are liable to be interfered with by this Court. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, further submits that the impugned notification has the effect of interfering with the fundamental rights of the members of the petitioner association to earn their livelihood by operating the permits issued to them. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, further submits that the impugned notification has the effect of interfering with the fundamental rights of the members of the petitioner association to earn their livelihood by operating the permits issued to them. As a result of the impugned notification dated 4-3-2014, the member of the petitioner association would be deprived of their fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India to carry on with their existing business/ profession by operating the vehicles owned by them. Mr. Choudhury submits that the state cannot impose such restriction on the enjoyment of the fundamental rights by the members of the petitioner association without framing any law to such effect. In support of his aforesaid arguments Mr. Choudhury has relied upon the following citations :- 1) AIR 1958 SC 296 [State of Kerala v. P. J. Joseph] 2) (2012) 4 SCC 653 [N.K.Bajpai vs. Union of India and another] 3) (2001) 2 KLT 209 Raghavan vs R.T.O Kollam. 4) (2014) 10 SCC 673 , [Gulf Goan Hotel Co. Limited and another vs Union of India and others] 8. Supporting the aforesaid arguments made by the learned senior counsel Mr. K. N. Choudhury, on the question of jurisdiction of the respondents to determine the age of a motor vehicle, Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners in WP(C) Nos.495/2014 and 1678/2014 submits that the only provision available in the Act of 1988 for determining the life of a vehicle is Section 59 the RTA does not have any jurisdiction under the Act of 1988 to take any decision which has the effect of determining the life of a vehicle. He submits that although there is a proper mechanism available under the Act of 1988 as well as the Rules framed thereunder for making periodic assessment of the fitness and/or roadworthiness of a motor vehicle, yet, no such assessment had been carried out by the authorities involving the vehicles owned by his clients prior to imposing a blanket ban on operation of all share taxis over 10 years old. Mr. Mr. Choudhury submits that the respondents have failed to produce any material before this Court so as to demonstrate any reasonable basis for fixing the age limit of 10 years for shared taxis notwithstanding the fact that the life of the vehicles extend beyond the said period under the certificate of registration issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act of 1988. 9. Inviting the attention of this court to the pleadings contained in the writ petitions, Mr. I. Choudhury submits that by floating a scheme in the name and style of “City Cab 2003” the Government of Assam had implored upon the unemployed youth in the city to come forward and avail the stage carriage permits for operating Trekkers and Tata Spacio vehicles as share taxis. It is in response to the said offer made by the Government that the members of the petitioner association had purchased the vehicles by obtaining bank loans whereby that had to arrange for finances to the extent of 25 % of the total amount from their private sources after great difficulty. He submits that the members of the petitioner association have made such substantial investments on a bonafide belief and with the legitimate expectation that they would be able to recoup their investments and at the same time earn their livelihood by operating the vehicles as share taxis for the full life term of the vehicles as per the certificate of registration. Contending further that the impugned action on the part of the respondents is nothing but a direct infringement on the enjoyment of fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, Mr. Choudhury submits that even if such fundamental rights are open to reasonable restriction at the hands of the State, yet, such reasonable restriction can only be imposed by the State by framing a law and the same cannot be done by issuing the impugned notification in utter violation of the principles of natural justice i.e. in the manner that has been chosen in the present case. In support of his aforementioned argument Mr. In support of his aforementioned argument Mr. I. Choudhury has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court :- 1) (2010) 10 SCC 715 [Gainda Ram and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others] 2) (1986)3 SCC 615 [Bijoe Emmanuel and others vs. State of Kerala and others] 3) (1981)2 SCC 600 [[M/s Lasmi Khandsari and others vs. State of U.P. and others] 10. Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2,3 and 4, on the other hand, submits that the questions raised in the present batch of writ petitions are all covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Subhash Chandra Gupta and others vs State of U.P. and other reported in (1980) 2 SCC 324 as well as K.M. Ismeth Ummer and another vs. Regional Transport Authority and another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 288 whereby it has been held that the RTA would have the powers under Section 72(2) of the Act of 1988 to grant permit for a stage carriage of a specified description which would include the power to fix the age of the vehicles also. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 67 of the Act of 1988 Mr. Saikia submits that the State Government has the power to control road transport and to such extent, may from time to time, take decisions keeping in mind the question of public convenience and safety. 11. By referring to the provisions of Sections 70, 71 and 72 of the Act of 1988 Mr. Saikia contends that the Act itself confers jurisdiction upon the RTA to grant a stage carriage permit or to refuse such permit on the conditions laid down in the Act. Under section 72(2) the RTA is empowered to grant stage carriage permit of a specified description and may, subject to any rule that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any of the conditions laid down therein. By referring to the impugned notification dated 04.03.2014 Mr. Saikia submits that the impugned Notification does not come in the way of the operation of the permit by the owners of the vehicles indicated therein but merely requires the permit holder to replace the old and dilapidated vehicles with new ones which are fitted with modern devices such as GPS etc. Saikia submits that the impugned Notification does not come in the way of the operation of the permit by the owners of the vehicles indicated therein but merely requires the permit holder to replace the old and dilapidated vehicles with new ones which are fitted with modern devices such as GPS etc. The aforesaid decision of the authorities has been taken with the sole objective of ensuring public safety and also for improving the over all transport system in the metropolitan city. Mr. Saikia further submits that the notification itself makes it clear that the same has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 72(2) read with sub-section 2 of Section 74 of the Act of 1988. 12. By relying upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of State of West Bengal & others vs. Bengal Bus Syndicate & others reported in 2010 SCC Online Cal 1160 as well as another decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shiv Adhar Yadav & others vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2009 SCC Online Bom 594 Mr. Saikia submits that it is no more res Integra that the RTA would have the powers under Section 72 read with Section 74(2) of the Act of 1988 to fix the age of a vehicle for the purpose of granting stage carriage permit keeping in mind the overall public interest. The aforesaid position has become further established in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Ismeth Ummer (supra). The learned senior counsel further submits that it is not a case of revocation of the permits issued to the vehicle owners since the notification dated 4-3-2014 makes it amply clear that the stage carriage permits issued to the vehicle owners would continue to remain valid and operable subject to replacement of the vehicles within a period of six months. As a matter of fact, submits Mr. Saikia, the old vehicle will be permitted to be used in areas in respect of which the above conditions are not applicable. On the basis of such arguments, Mr. Saikia, prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 13. As a matter of fact, submits Mr. Saikia, the old vehicle will be permitted to be used in areas in respect of which the above conditions are not applicable. On the basis of such arguments, Mr. Saikia, prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 13. Although the respondent No.5 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Guwahati has not filed any affidavit yet, the learned Government Advocate has placed a copy of the written instructions dated 30-04-2014 submitted by the said respondent giving the data pertaining the accidents that has occurred in the Guwahati City involving the share taxis “Trekkers”, a perusal of which goes to show that there has been 478 accident cases in the City area during the period between 2003 and 2014 involving the “ Trekkers”. 14. Upon due consideration of the pleadings on record as well as the arguments made by the learned counsels for the parties it is apparent that the key question arising for consideration of this court in the present batch of writ petitions would be as to whether the impugned notification dated 04.03.2014 inserting a new condition in the existing stage carriage/ contract carriage permits prescribing changed specification of the vehicles is authorized by the Act of 1988. In order to answer the said question, an analysis of scheme of the Act of 1988 is deemed necessary at this stage. 15. An examination of the Act of 1988 goes to indicate that Chapter IV of the Act containing Sections 39 to 65 deals with registration of motor vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 lays down in details the procedure to be followed as regards registration of a vehicle. Section 59 confers the power upon the Central Government to specify the life of a motor vehicle from the date of its manufacture which power is required to be exercised having due regard to the public safety, convenience and object of the Act. After expiry of the life of a vehicle as determined under Section 59 of the Act of 1988, the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirement of the Act of 1988. Section 59 of the Act of 1988 reads as follows :- “59. Power to fix the age limit of motor vehicle. After expiry of the life of a vehicle as determined under Section 59 of the Act of 1988, the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirement of the Act of 1988. Section 59 of the Act of 1988 reads as follows :- “59. Power to fix the age limit of motor vehicle. 1) The Central Government may, having regard to the public safety, convenience and objects of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the life of a motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after the expiry of which the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder : Provided that the Central Government may specify different ages for different classes or different types of motor vehicles. 2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, having regard to the purpose of a motor vehicle, such, as display or use for the purposes of a demonstration in any exhibition, use for the purposes of technical research or taking part in a vintage car rally, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt by general or special order, subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification, any class or type of motor vehicle from the operation of sub-section (1) for the purpose to be stated in the notification. 3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 56, no prescribed authority testing station shall grant a certificate of fitness to a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued under sub-section (1).” 16. Chapter V of the Act of 1988 containing Sections 66 to 98, on the other hand, deals with control of transport vehicles. Section 66 lays down that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place carrying passengers or goods save and in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter-signed by Regional or State Transport Authority or any other authority prescribed by the law. Section 70 of the Act of 1988 provides that application for stage carriage permit can be made by furnishing the particulars mentioned therein. Section 72(1) of the Act confers a discretion upon the authority of either granting the permit or refusing to grant the same. Section 70 of the Act of 1988 provides that application for stage carriage permit can be made by furnishing the particulars mentioned therein. Section 72(1) of the Act confers a discretion upon the authority of either granting the permit or refusing to grant the same. Sub-Section (2) of Section 72 provides that the RTA, if it decides to grant stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description. Section 72 of the Act of 1988 is quoted herein below :- “72 Grant of stage carriage permits.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 71, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under Section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit: Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. (2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and 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 the operation of the stage carriage shall be commenced with effect from a specified date; (iii) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips to be provided in relation to any route or area generally or on specified days and occasions; (iv) that copies of the time-table of the stage carriage approved by the Regional Transport Authority shall be exhibited on the vehicles and at specified stands and halts on the route or within the area; (v) that the stage carriage shall be operated within such margins of deviation from the approved time-table as the Regional Transport Authority may from time to time specify; (vi) that within municipal limits and such other areas and places as may be prescribed, passengers or goods shall not be taken up or set down except at specified points; (vii) the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the stage carriage, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons; (viii) the weight and nature of passengers’ luggage that shall be carried free of charge, the total weight of luggage that may be carried in relation to each passenger, and the arrangements that shall be made for the carriage of luggage without causing inconvenience to passengers; (ix) the rate of charge that may be levied for passengers’ luggage in excess of the free allowance; (x) that vehicles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications shall be used: Provided that the attachment of this condition to a permit shall not prevent the continued use, for a period of two years from the date of publication of the approved specifications, of any vehicle operating on that date; (xi) that specified standards of comfort and cleanliness shall be maintained in the vehicles; (xii) the conditions subject to which goods may be carried in the stage carriage in addition to or to the exclusion of passengers; (xiii) that fares shall be charged in accordance with the approved fare table; (xiv) that a copy of, or extract from, the fare table approved by the Regional Transport Authority and particulars of any special fares or rates of fares so approved for particular occasions shall be exhibited on the stage carriage and at specified stands and halts; (xv) that tickets bearing specified particulars shall be issued to passengers and shall show the fares actually charged and that records of tickets issued shall be kept in a specified manner; (xvi) that mails shall be carried on the vehicle subject to such conditions (including conditions as to the time in which mails are to be carried and the charges which may be levied) as may be specified; (xvii) the vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions; (xviii) the conditions subject to which the vehicle may be used as a contract carriage; (xix) that specified arrangements shall be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of vehicle; (xx) that any specified bus station or shelter maintained by Government or a local authority shall be used and that any specified rent or fee shall be paid for such use; (xxi) that the conditions of the permit shall not be departed from, save with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority; (xxii) 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: Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometres, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof; (xxiii) that the holder of a permit shall furnish to the Regional Transport Authority such periodical returns, statistics and other information as the State Government may from time to time prescribe: (xxiv) any other conditions which may be prescribed.” 17. Section 74 of the Act of 1988 deals with powers of the RTA to grant or refuse permit of contract carriage which is quoted below :- “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 permit : 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 or hiring, other than an extension or modification of a subsisting contract, may be entered outside 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; (i) 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 vehicle; (ii) that, in the case of vehicles other than motorcabs, specified rates of hiring not exceeding specified maximum shall be charged; (iii) 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; (iv) that, in the case of motorcabs, a taximeter shall be fitted and maintained in proper working order, if prescribed; (v) 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 vehicle 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 stage carriage operator including payment of tax if the applicant is or has been an operator of stage carriage service; 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 India Tourism Development Corporation; (ii) State Tourism Development Corporations; (iii) State Tourism Departments; (iv) State Transport Undertakings; (v) Co-operative societies registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment for the time being in force; (vi) Ex-servicemen.” 18. Chapter VII of the Act of 1988 deals with “Control of Traffic “. The different provisions in the said chapter gives the power to the State Government to control and regulate the movement of traffic by imposing various conditions. Section 113 of the Act of 1988, provides that the State Government may prescribe the conditions for the issue of permits for transport vehicles by the State or Regional Transport Authorities and may prohibit or restrict the use of such vehicles in any area or route. 19. Section 115 of the Act of 1988 falling under chapter VII confers power upon the state government to restrict use of vehicles which reads as follows :- “115. Power to restrict the use of vehicles.--- The State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under section 116 at suitable places : Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall be given of such prohibition or restriction.” 20. In the case of Shubhas Chandra and Others (supra) the Supreme Court, while examining the provision of section 52 (2)(x) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, has held that the said provision empowered the RTA the impost of any condition, of course, having a nexus with the statutory purpose. In the case of Shubhas Chandra and Others (supra) the Supreme Court, while examining the provision of section 52 (2)(x) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, has held that the said provision empowered the RTA the impost of any condition, of course, having a nexus with the statutory purpose. It has been held that while issuing contract carriage permits the authority can impose a restriction on the age of the vehicle for the purpose of operation of the permit. 21. Dealing with the question of power of the RTA to impose restriction as regards the age of a vehicle while granting a permit for stage carriage under Section 72(2) of the Act of 1988, the Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Ismeth Ummer (supra) has observed as follows :- “5. Under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Regional Transport Authority may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a “specified description”. The expression “specified description” is very wide and, in our opinion, this would include fixing the age of the vehicle also. Restricting the age of the vehicle for the grant of permit for a stage carriage is obviously in the public interest because old vehicles can cause accidents and inconvenience and, therefore, the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are perfectly justified in placing such a restriction for grant of the permit.” 22. In the case of State of West Bengal & others (supra) the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was confronted with a question of similar nature and had answered the same in favour of the RTA by holding that in order to effectuate control of transport vehicles the State Governments are empowered to adopt all measures as envisaged in the Act of 1988. The Calcutta High Court had held that the object of prescribing age limit for granting permit is not the same as that of fixing age of the motor vehicle under section 59 of the Act. The observations made by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court are quoted herein below :- “24. Therefore, object of condition of age limit for granting of permit cannot be the same as that of power of fixing age limit of motor vehicle for registration of the vehicle, under section 59 of the Act. Significantly section 56 provides for necessity for issuance of Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. Therefore, object of condition of age limit for granting of permit cannot be the same as that of power of fixing age limit of motor vehicle for registration of the vehicle, under section 59 of the Act. Significantly section 56 provides for necessity for issuance of Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. Similarly section 58 mandates certain requirement for transport vehicle as special condition. In the Rule framed by the Central Government nothing has been provided regarding age limit of the vehicle for granting permit except national permit. Hence this subject still remains virgin. According to us section 59 of the Act does not curb the power to make rule by the State regarding fixing of age for grant of permits by the State & Regional Transport Authorities. The State while framing Rule is to make it sure that there should not be inconsistency or contradiction to the Rule framed by the Central Government. We therefore hold while rejecting submission of the learned Counsels for the respondents, that the learned Trial Judge has incorrectly concluded that the State Government while framing impugned Rule encroached upon the power of the Central Government conferred upon under section 59 of the Act. Hence the decisions cited on the questions of encroachment are not at all relevant, accordingly we choose not to deal with the same.” 23. In the case of Shiv Adhar Yadav & others (supra) the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has observed as follows :- “3. The powers under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 74 of the Act are of a very large magnitude and empower the concerned Authority having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters to impose any condition to limit the number of contract carriages generally or of any specified type, and further empower the Regional Transport Authority, after giving notice, to vary the conditions staged in the permit or attach to the permit further conditions in terms of section – 74(2)(ix). Section 74(2)(xiii) provides that the Competent Authority can impose any other conditions which may be prescribed. These powers under which the State Government, Central Government or Regional Transport Authority operate are distinct. Section 74(2)(xiii) provides that the Competent Authority can impose any other conditions which may be prescribed. These powers under which the State Government, Central Government or Regional Transport Authority operate are distinct. There can be a complete prohibition under section 59 of the Act which renders a vehicle inoperable, while under sections 66 and 74 of the Act, it is limited to grant of a permit for a vehicle used as public transport or a contract carriage. Vide the impugned Resolution, though reference was made to 15 to 20 years old taxis running on CNG/LPG, on examining and knowing their condition they being unable to ply and ferry the passengers, it was specifically noticed that the age is to be fixed by the Central Government which has a right to fix the age of the vehicle but keeping in view the directions of the Supreme Court in various cases,, including the order dated 22nd September, 1998 in the case of (M.C.Mehta v. Government), in Writ Petition No.(Civil) 13029 of 1985 reported in 1998 DGLS (soft) 934 : (1948) 8 SCC 206 and in the larger public interest and to prevent pollution, decision was taken to remove such vehicles from being used and plied on road in absolute terms. It only admitted and in fact has spelt out the terms and conditions for grant of extension of permit to any transport public and/or contract carriage vehicles. It is a power which has been exercised by the State, as is clear from the affidavit, in terms of sections 66 and 74 of the Act and is not relatable to section 59 of the Act. Thus, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is without any merit.” 24. While dealing with the scope of power of the RTA under section 72(2) of the Act of 1988, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has held in the case of Raghavan (supra) that the RTA would have the power to attach condition by fixing age of a motor vehicle while granting stage carriage permit. 25. While dealing with the scope of power of the RTA under section 72(2) of the Act of 1988, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has held in the case of Raghavan (supra) that the RTA would have the power to attach condition by fixing age of a motor vehicle while granting stage carriage permit. 25. A bare analysis of the catena of decisions referred to above read with the relevant provisions of the Act of 1988 leaves no room for doubt that under sections 72(2) or 74(2), as the case may be, the RTA would have the statutory power to issue permit of a specified description with certain conditions attached thereto which may include fixing the operable age of a transport vehicle. The power under section 72(2) and 74 (2) would also include the power to vary the conditions attached to a permit, after giving due notice to the permit holder, subject to the provisions of the Act and any Rule that may be framed by the State Government under section 96(1) of the Act of 1988. 26. Besides the above provisions of the Act, in exercise of powers conferred under sections 113 and 115 of the Act of 1988, the State Government would also be competent to prescribe conditions for issuance of permits for transport vehicles and can prohibit or restrict the use of such vehicle in any area or route for the purpose of traffic control. Effective measures for control of traffic control are also significant steps towards ensuring public safety and convenience on the road. The underlying object and purpose of the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1988 appears to be to vest the power upon the state government to control and regulate the use of any particular type or description of vehicle used as public transport vehicle if the warrant of public interest so demands. 27. The power of the Central Government to fix the age of a vehicle under Section 59 of the Act of 1988, on the other hand, operates in a completely different sphere as compared to the power available to the State Government or its agencies under section 72 or 74 of the Act. 27. The power of the Central Government to fix the age of a vehicle under Section 59 of the Act of 1988, on the other hand, operates in a completely different sphere as compared to the power available to the State Government or its agencies under section 72 or 74 of the Act. The object of section 59 of the Act is to specify the life of a motor vehicle and, therefore, permits the central government to issue a certificate of fitness governing the road worthiness of a motor vehicle having regard to a particular model reckoned from its date of manufacture. Such fitness certificate would have a direct bearing in the matter of registration of the vehicle having uniform applicability throughout the country and on the expiry of such certificate, the vehicle itself will cease to comply with the requirement of the Act of 1988. On the contrary, the power to issue permit under section 72 and 74 of the Act is meant to vest the power upon the State Government and its authorized agencies to control and regulate the movement of Transport vehicles in that place and in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. Therefore, it is a matter falling exclusively within the domain of the State Government and its agencies and the Central Government would have no role to play in such matters. Whereas, the fixing of the age limit of a vehicle by the RTA under section 72 or 74 of the Act would impose a restriction on use of the vehicle in operation of a stage carriage or contract carriage permit beyond the prescribed age, the expiry of the life certificate issued under section 59 of the Act would incur a general disqualification upon the vehicle, subject to the exceptions provided in the Act, to operate on the road. The linkage between the two jurisdictions appears to be that both the Central Government as well as the State Government is required to exercise such powers under their assigned fields bearing in mind the question of public safety, convenience and the object of the Act. 28. The linkage between the two jurisdictions appears to be that both the Central Government as well as the State Government is required to exercise such powers under their assigned fields bearing in mind the question of public safety, convenience and the object of the Act. 28. A conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1988, therefore, makes it abundantly clear that the State Government and its Agencies would not only have the authority but also the duty to carry out periodic review of the public transport system having regard to the question of public safety and upon such review if it is of the opinion that the operation of a particular type or description of public transport vehicle runs the risk of endangering public safety then the government would be under a duty to take remedial measures in respect thereof. It must, however, be added herein that besides the issues pertaining to the description/ specification of the transport vehicles, the norms that are employed for grant of driving licenses, restrictions on speed limits etc. would also have a relevant bearing on the question of public safety and hence, deserves equal attention and importance from the authorities. 29. In the instant cases, the impugned notification itself makes it clear that the same does not in any way intend to revoke the permit granted to the owners of the vehicles but merely requires the old and non-compliant vehicles to be replaced by new ones. Therefore, the impugned notification effectively attaches a new specification of the vehicle in respect of which stage carriage/ contract carriage permits had been granted by the RTA. Such a condition appears to be akin to the one pertaining to attachment of condition of approved specification indicated under section 72(2) (x) of the Act of 1988. The restriction imposed by the impugned notification would be applicable only if the vehicle is sought to be used by the owners in operation of such permit. Therefore, it is not the case that the operation of the old vehicles have been completely banned throughout the State for all purposes. 30. It may be the case that replacement of old vehicles by new ones at a short notice would have some financial implication thereby imposing extra burden upon the vehicle owners. However, in matters of this nature the safety of the public at large is of paramount consideration. 30. It may be the case that replacement of old vehicles by new ones at a short notice would have some financial implication thereby imposing extra burden upon the vehicle owners. However, in matters of this nature the safety of the public at large is of paramount consideration. Hence, commercial interest of a handful of individual vehicle operators must give way to such greater public interest. Permitting the continued operation of old and dilapidated vehicle as public transport could pose potential hazard to the thousands of travelers using public transport on a day to day basis. On an objective assessment of the prevailing conditions if the Government is of the opinion that a person who has obtained permit for operating a particular stage carriage should not be allowed to run a ramshackle vehicle or vehicles which in one way or the other compromises public safety then it would certainly be competent to act under the Act of 1988 and impose such conditions in the permit when the same is meant for the benefit of the general public. No person can claim to have a fundamental right to run a business or profession by operating a ramshackle vehicle which endangers public safety. 31. The learned counsels for the petitioners have fairly submitted that they are not pressing the ground of mala fide in the present batch of writ petitions. The manufacturer of the vehicle of the make of “Trekkers” and “Spacio” are also apparently not aggrieved by the impugned decision to impose a complete ban on these vehicles to be used as share taxis. As has been indicated herein above, the petitioners have failed to substantiate their argument that the impugned decision has been taken in an arbitrary and irrational manner. On the contrary, examination of the record goes to show that there are cogent reasons for the respondents to impose the condition as introduced by the impugned notification and that the said decision has been taken in larger public interest and in deference to the powers available under the Act of 1988. Since the restriction imposed by the impugned notification has been found to be reasonable and duly authorized under the law, the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the impugned action of the State was in violation of their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India cannot be countenanced. Since the restriction imposed by the impugned notification has been found to be reasonable and duly authorized under the law, the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the impugned action of the State was in violation of their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India cannot be countenanced. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the considered opinion that the challenge made in the writ petitions is devoid of any merit and hence, the same stands rejected. In the result, the notification dated 04-03-2014 stands upheld. 32. Referring to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Raghavan (supra), the learned senior counsel Mr. K. N. Choudhury submits that in the event this Court rejects the challenge made to the impugned notification, then also at least two years time be granted to the vehicle owners for replacement of the vehicles as otherwise the same would cause serious hardships to the members of the petitioner association. Repelling the said submission Mr. Saikia, submits that although the impugned notification had been issued in the month of March, 2014, yet, the same had not been given effect to till date in view of the interim orders passed by this Court in the present batch of writ petitions. Therefore, the petitioners have already enjoyed the benefit of more than a years’ time and as such no further time is required to be granted in the instant case. He, however, fairly submits that if this Court is inclined to extend the time period of six month as originally provided under the notification then the same may be kept confined to a maximum of another two month and not beyond. 33. As has been held herein before, by issuing the impugned notification, the State Government has virtually modified the conditions in the existing permits by prescribing new specifications for the vehicle to be used. The new specification would require the replacement of the existing vehicles by the new ones fitted with the prescribed gadgets. Since the permit holders are earning a livelihood by operating the stage carriage permits, hence, there is no denying the fact that such changed specification would result in to substantial dislocation in their vocational sphere. The new specification would require the replacement of the existing vehicles by the new ones fitted with the prescribed gadgets. Since the permit holders are earning a livelihood by operating the stage carriage permits, hence, there is no denying the fact that such changed specification would result in to substantial dislocation in their vocational sphere. Therefore, unless such a new condition in the permit is introduced in a phased manner permitting the owners reasonable time to make alternative arrangements, the same is bound to cause undue hardship and inconvenience to the vehicle owners presently in operation. Being cognizant of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, even the Government had apparently permitted six months time to the vehicle owners to replace their existing vehicles with the new ones. 34. A perusal of the provision of section 72(2) (x) of the Act of 1988, goes to show that attachment of any condition to the permit introducing a new specification in respect of any vehicle operating on that date shall not prevent the continued use of the vehicle for a period of two years from the date of publication of the approved specification. Taking note of the said provision, the Kerala High Court had also, under similar circumstances, permitted two years time to the vehicle owners to make alternative arrangements. Having regard to the aforesaid provision contained in the Act of 1988 I am also inclined to take a similar view in these cases. As such, I am of the considered opinion that, ends of justice would be met if the owners are given at least two years time, reckoned from the date of the notification, to replace the old vehicles. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, it is hereby directed that in the cases of all the concerned transport vehicles viz. city buses, school busses and share taxis operating as on 04-03-2014 under a valid permit issued by the State Authorities, the time period granted under the notification dated 04.03.2014 for replacement of the Old vehicles by the new ones of prescribed specification shall stand extended upto 31-03-2016. With the above observations, these writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to cost.