JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. Petitioners are all residents outside the municipal area of Vatakara. The petitioners contend that, they are plying auto rickshaws but however, have been interdicted from entering inside the Vatakara Municipality. Petitioners specifically challenge Ext. P6. Ext. P6 is a reply given by the Regional Transport Officer to the 1st petitioner herein on a request made to provide a parking space within the Vatakara Municipality. The Regional Transport Officer, on the basis of a decision of the Transport Commissioner, rejected the request of the 1st petitioner on the ground that none who have residence outside the Vatakara Municipality can be allowed a parking space within the Municipal area. The petitioners allege that such discrimination on the basis of residence would run contrary to the constitutional provisions. The petitioners also have a similar contention with respect to Clause (i) in Ext. P9 wherein the residents outside the Vatakara Municipality have been interdicted from applying for parking space within the Vatakara Municipality. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents would submit that there are already too many auto rickshaws parking within the Municipality and hence, there cannot be further permits allowed to park within the Vatakara Municipality. The essential contention seems to be that, such permission to park would make intrusion into the livelihood of the auto drivers who are already parking inside the Vatakara Municipality. That contention cannot be countenanced, since every citizen has a right to live and to carry on business and as long as it does not restrict the right of another, there can be no interdiction of permits unless there is a statutory prohibition. 3A. The issue agitated herein is covered by the decision of this Court in WP (C). 24688 of 2013 dated 22/11/2013. Therein a similar question arose where the Transport Authorities in the Ernakulam District restricted the residents outside the Ernakulam city to apply for permits within the Ernakulam city. This Court found so, on the specific issue raised, in paragraph 10: "While this Court does not express any opinion as to whether in fact or on law the petitioners are entitled to grant of permit or not, necessarily their applications cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground of their having no residence within the Corporation limits." 3. The very same principle would apply herein also. The reasons stated in Ext. The very same principle would apply herein also. The reasons stated in Ext. P6 hence are not sustainable and the Transport Authorities cannot rely on such decision taken by the Transport Commissioner to restrict the permits within the Municipal area. The condition insofar as Ext. P9 restricting application for parking space within the Vatakara Municipality, to residents inside the Municipal area, will have no consequence. The restriction hence would stand set aside. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically points to the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector at Ext. P4 wherein as on 15/06/2010, there were 11 auto rickshaw parking stands within the municipal area with around 1053 permits. As of now, going by Ext. P9 dated 05/05/2014 there are 58 auto rickshaw stands with only 1505 permits. There is a contention by the additional respondents that the entire parking stands as indicated in Ext. P9 have not been implemented. However, that is a question which will have to be considered by the RTA in consultation with the Local Self Government Institution. The specific direction in the judgment afore mentioned as extracted herein above, would apply in the case of the petitioners herein also. Hence, it is not as if this Court has directed grant of the permits; however, restriction imposed as far as the non-residents being not entitled to apply will have to go. Consideration of the application will be in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.