JUDGMENT : MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. The petitioners pray for a direction on the respondent nos.2 and 3, being the Secretary (Transport), Director of Transport/Chairman, State Transport Authority, A & N Administration, respectively, to recall and withdraw the show cause notices and suspension/cancellation orders issued by the respondents to the members of the petitioners/petitioners’ Union. The petitioners also seek a direction on the respondents to withdraw certain conditions in the Permits granted to the petitioners for plying autorickshaws in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. 2. The petitioners are Unions and individual members who ply their auto rickshaws in the South Andaman District. The petitioners are aggrieved by inclusion of certain conditions in the Permits which were granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. The impugned Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners for alleged violation of the conditions of the Permits granted by the State Transport Authority (STA). Arguments made on behalf of the parties The Petitioners: 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the source of the impugned show cause notices are certain Minutes of Meetings of the STA held in April and July, 2017, March, 2018, April, 2021 and June, 2023. Counsel submits that the petitioners did not have knowledge of these Minutes and came to know of the same only in July, 2023 when the authorities withdrew the No Objections granted to the petitioners and the petitioners were restrained from plying their auto rickshaws in the Islands. Counsel submits that the Minutes of Meetings forms the basis of the STA’s impugned decisions. Counsel challenges these Minutes as being discriminatory and de hors the law, i.e the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the A & N Administration Notification dated 18.04.2006. Counsel submits that the petitioners’ licences/Permits can only be cancelled on violation of the provisions of the Act and further that the Minutes of the meeting cannot be termed as policy decisions. The Respondents/State Transport Authority 5. Learned counsel submits that the members of the petitioners’ Union/s are all holders of the Permits issued by the STA and that a total of 257 Permits were issued from 2007-2021. Counsel submits that the persons in question accepted the Permits subject to the conditions specified therein. 6. Counsel submits that the impugned orders of suspension do not suffer from any breach of procedure or natural justice. Counsel submits that the persons in question accepted the Permits subject to the conditions specified therein. 6. Counsel submits that the impugned orders of suspension do not suffer from any breach of procedure or natural justice. It is further submitted that sections 67, 68 and 86 of the M.V. Act give wide powers to the Authority to suspend and cancel Permits in the event of breach of any of the conditions imposed in the Permits. Counsel relies on Rule 50(1) of the A & N Islands Motor Vehicle Rules, 2006, which gives powers to the STA to make bye-laws. Counsel submits that the policy decision of the STA to impose conditions are contained in the Minutes of the Meeting held on various dates from 2007-2023 and that the Court should not interfere in matters of policy except in extraordinary circumstances. Counsel further submits that the restriction on non-Islanders serves a larger public interest and constitutes reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Added respondent: 7. Learned counsel appearing for the added respondents, who are local auto rickshaw drivers/members of local auto rickshaw unions, refers to the policy adopted by the STA since 1989 for allowing only Permit holders to ply auto rickshaws in the Islands. Counsel supports the arguments of the respondents in that Minutes of Meetings constitute the policy decisions of the STA. Counsel submits that the STA has been conferred with wide powers to make rules in appropriate matters which create a statutory basis in which the STA may regulate certain situations. 8. Counsel relies on the A & N Islands M.V. Rules, 2006 with regard to creating a specific legal regime empowering the STA with jurisdiction and powers. Counsel further submits that the Islanders vs. Non-Islanders debate created by the policy decisions amounts to a reasonable classification and further that conditions of domicile are justified in the present case. Counsel supports the case of the respondents in urging that the M.V. Act allows cancellations/suspension of Permits where there is breach of conditions contained in the Permit. Issues: I. Whether the condition against transfer of Permits falls within the scheme of the M.V. Act, 1988? II. Whether the STA could impose conditions/additional condition by way of administrative meetings? III. Whether the conditions are discriminatory? IV. Should the show cause notices and notices of cancellation/suspension be quashed? Issues: I. Whether the condition against transfer of Permits falls within the scheme of the M.V. Act, 1988? II. Whether the STA could impose conditions/additional condition by way of administrative meetings? III. Whether the conditions are discriminatory? IV. Should the show cause notices and notices of cancellation/suspension be quashed? First Issue : Whether the condition against transfer of Permits falls within the scheme of the M.V. Act, 1988? 9. Admittedly, the 2 conditions which form the crux of the grievances brought to the Court are as follows : “ … And Whereas, one of the general condition at S. No. –VII of the route permit No. PCC/STA/D9058 dated 05.03.2008 is that in the case of autorickshaw, permit shall suspended/cancelled if the vehicle is not driven by the person whose name has been furnished by the owner to the STA and entered in the permit. And Whereas, a report has been received from Dy. Superintendent of Police (Traffic), that the above passenger Autorickshaw bearing registration No. AN 01/D-9058 was found driven on 05.07.2023 by an unauthorized person whose name has not been furnished and entered in permit, thus violating S No.-VII of the permit conditions and the provisions of MV Act. … … The vehicle is not driven by the person whose name has been furnished by the owner to the STA and entered in the permit (in the case of Autorickshaw).” 10. The petitioner’s grievance is 2-fold in respect of the above. The petitioners say that the conditions are the result of the Minutes of Meetings of the STA and that the petitioners had no knowledge of these administrative decisions. Second, that the Permits were granted by the STA itself from 2007 onwards hence the petitioners cannot be made liable for the alleged contraventions. 11. The petitioners’ consequential argument is that the STA cannot suddenly wake up in 2023 when the STA permitted the situation to exist from 2007 onwards. 12. The provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988 must be examined in this regard. Chapter-V of the Act deals with control of transport vehicles and covers the legal regime for all types of Permits for transport vehicles. The necessity for Permits, the power of the State Government (in this case, the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands), application for Permits and considerations for grant of Permits are all to be found under sections 66-69 of the Act. 13. The necessity for Permits, the power of the State Government (in this case, the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands), application for Permits and considerations for grant of Permits are all to be found under sections 66-69 of the Act. 13. The M.V.Act was enacted in 1988 after repeal of the earlier Act of 1939. The 1988 Act does not specifically define an “autorickshaw”. An autorickshaw, being a mechanically-propelled vehicle for carrying a limited number of passengers for hire including the driver, would hence come within the definition of “motor cab” under section 2(25) of the M.V.Act. The definition of autorickshaw can be found in the Central Government notification No.SO.436(E) dated 12.06.1989 as “a motor vehicle having three wheels constructed or adapted and used to carry not more than 3 passengers for hire or reward excluding the driver.” The same definition of “autorickshaw” is found under Rule 2(1)(g) of the A & N Islands M.V.Rules, 2006. 14. Sections 73 and 74 under Chapter V deals with application for grant of contract carriage Permit. Section 74(2) confers the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) with the power to attach any one or more of the conditions enumerated under (i) – (xii) thereof subject to any Rules that may be made under this Act. The 13 conditions are detailed but are left open ended allowing the RTA to make other conditions which may be prescribed. 15. Hence, the framework of the Act gives a wide berth to the Authority in terms of specifying the conditions in the Permit. Section 82 of the Act prohibits transfer of Permits from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the Permit. Section 84 lists 7 general conditions which shall attach to all Permits. Section 86 authorizes the transport authority, which granted the Permit, to cancel or suspended the Permit for such period as it thinks fit on 6 grounds including for breach of any of the conditions under section 84. 16. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Motor Vehicle Rules, 2006 were notified on 18.04.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by the sections 28, 38, 65 read with section 2(41) of the M.V. Act. Chapter V of these Rules deals with control of transport vehicles. Rule 48 deals with the STA in the UT and the terms of appointment of a member of the STA. Chapter V of these Rules deals with control of transport vehicles. Rule 48 deals with the STA in the UT and the terms of appointment of a member of the STA. Rule 49 provides for meetings of the STA and Rule 50 deal with conduct of business of the STA. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 50 is set out below: “Rule 50 Conduct of business of State Transport Authority : (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules and to the approval of the UT Administration, the State Transport Authority shall have power to make byelaws, and the business of such authority shall be conducted accordingly under the directions of the Chairman”. 17. Section 82(1) of the M.V. Act makes it clear that a Permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the Permit. The only exception to this can be found in sub-section (2) of section 82 which provides for a scenario upon the death of the Permit holder where the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the Permit may use the Permit for three months. Section 86 makes it clear that a Permit can be cancelled/suspended by the transport authority for breach of any of the conditions contained in the Permit or if the holder of the Permit uses the vehicle in a manner not authorized by the Permit. 18. In the present case, annexure R-11 of the respondents’ vacating application to WPA/11/2024 (which was to be used as the affidavit-in-opposition pursuant to the direction of a Coordinate Bench on 10.01.2024) encloses a Permit issued on 17.02.2023 with the condition that the Permit shall be suspended/cancelled; “ if the vehicle is not driven by the persons whose name has been furnished by the owner to STA and entered in the Permit in the case of auto rickshaw” 19. The above condition cannot be said to be in contravention of the M.V. Act; refer to sections 82 and 86, as stated above. 20. The question of the STA issuing Permit to present other than owners of the vehicles or allowing non-owners to drive auto rickshaws from 2007 onwards does not absolve contraventions of the provisions of the M.V.Act, namely, prohibiting transfer of Permits or on a person whose name has not been entered with the Administration. 20. The question of the STA issuing Permit to present other than owners of the vehicles or allowing non-owners to drive auto rickshaws from 2007 onwards does not absolve contraventions of the provisions of the M.V.Act, namely, prohibiting transfer of Permits or on a person whose name has not been entered with the Administration. STA’s inaction to correct the non-compliance cannot constitute waiver or create any form of equity in favour of the petitioners to continue the wrong. 21. Therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of the respondents. The conclusion is in respect to the conditions enumerated in the first part of this section. Violation of any of the conditions which forms part of the MV Act or the A & N Islands Motors Vehicles Rules, 2006 which formed part of the Permit at the time of issue, cannot be a ground of challenge in these writ petitions. Second Issue: Whether the STA could impose conditions/additional condition by way of administrative meetings? 22. The petitioners say that “additional” conditions were imposed by STA in the Permits which is contrary to law. By “additional”, the petitioners mean (i) conditions which were subsequently added and (ii) conditions which are not within the statutory framework of the M.V.Act. 23. According to the petitioners, the condition which was subsequently added is this:- “STA after deliberation decided that since the applicants could not submit Islander Card/Local certificate for obtaining NOC to purchase autorickshaw, their request cannot be considered as furnishing of local certificate/Islander card is one of the mandatory conditions for obtaining autorickshaw permit.” 24. The above condition however appears in the Minutes of the Meeting of the STA held on 23.04.2007. The relevant part of the Minutes records as follows: (i) Permit will be issued only to the local unemployed people below 40 age, and (ii) … (iii) … (iv) Should submit Islander Identity Card or Local Certificate. The 40 years age limit was subsequently changed to 50 years by the STA in the meeting held on 21.07.2017. 25. Since it is nobody’s case that STA issued Permits for autorickshaws prior to 2007, the condition requiring production of Islander Identity Card or Local Certificate cannot be seen as a subsequent addition to the conditions at the time of grant. 25. Since it is nobody’s case that STA issued Permits for autorickshaws prior to 2007, the condition requiring production of Islander Identity Card or Local Certificate cannot be seen as a subsequent addition to the conditions at the time of grant. In fact, the requirement of Local Certificate/Islander Card was also recorded as part of the decision taken by STA in its meeting held on 23.08.2018. 26. The present question is whether the STA could impose conditions/additional conditions in the form of Minutes of Meetings held on various dates from 2007 – 2023? The legality of imposing the above condition will be discussed later in the judgment. 27. Admittedly, the decisions taken by the STA were contained in the Minutes of the Meetings. Each of the Minutes which are on record discloses deliberations on contemporaneous issues and concerns followed-up by “Decisions”. In that sense, the deliberations are closed-door without being backed or followed-up by bye-laws in accordance with the A & N Islands Motor Vehicles Rules, 2006. 28. Rule 50(1) of these Rules, which has been set out above, confers the STA with the power to make bye-laws and makes it clear that the business of the STA shall be conducted “accordingly” i.e. through the bye-laws, subject to the provisions of the MV.Act,1988 and the A & N Islands M.V.Rules, 2006. 29. The conclusion must therefore be that decisions taken in the Meetings of the STA from time to time cannot be elevated to the level of a bye-law or a part of the 2006 Rules which are specific to the Islands. Discussions and deliberations of the Authority held at Meetings cannot, under any construction of the Acts or the Rules, be seen as having the force of law, a rule or a bye-law which can be unleashed by the Authority to impose the penalty of suspension or even issue a show cause notice. Rule 50 mandates that the STA shall conduct its business through bye-laws under the directions of the Chairman hence specifying the form in which its decisions should be embodied. 30. There is also no evidence that the “Decision” taken in the Meetings were published or communicated to the public at large. Hence, any subsequent decision, apart from being without the backing of the prescribed procedure, also suffers from breach of the principles of natural justice. 30. There is also no evidence that the “Decision” taken in the Meetings were published or communicated to the public at large. Hence, any subsequent decision, apart from being without the backing of the prescribed procedure, also suffers from breach of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners, being autorickshaw drivers, cannot be expected to be aware of such closed-door decisions. 31. Moreover, sub-section(3) of Section 68 of the M.V.Act mandates that the State Transport Authority and every State Transport Authority shall give effect any directions issued under section 67, for the purpose of control of road transport, and that the STA shall exercise and discharge its powers and functions subject to such directions. Section 68(3)(d) includes the power to discharge such other functions as “may be prescribed”. The word “prescribed” has been defined as “prescribed by rules under this Act” under section 2(32) of M.V.Act. 32. Hence, a plain construction of section 68(3)(d) of the M.V.Act read with Rules 50(1) of the A&N M.V.Rules, is that the STA has been given wide powers for the purpose of discharging its functions but that such power/functions must only be exercised within the parameters of the M.V.Act or though bye-laws for the A & N Islands. 33. The Minutes of Meetings were informal deliberations taking into account valid concerns. The decisions however cannot be enforced akin to laws. 34. The second issue is hence answered in favour of the petitioners, i.e. imposing conditions, additional or otherwise, in the form of Minutes of Meetings is contrary to the M.V.Act read with the A & N M.V.Rules, 2006. Third Issue: Whether the conditions are discriminatory? 35. This issue hinges on the “Islander vs. Non-Islander” controversy. The petitioners argue that the requirement on an applicant to produce an Islander Identity Card or Local Certificate is discriminatory and against Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which embodies the right to practice any trade or business. It may be reiterated that this condition runs through most of the Minutes of the Meetings from 2007-2023. 36. As stated above, section 74 of the M.V.Act empowers the RTA to grant a contract carriage Permit on an application made under section 73 and more particularly authorizes the Authority to attach any one or more of the conditions enumerated in section 74(2)(i)–(xii). 36. As stated above, section 74 of the M.V.Act empowers the RTA to grant a contract carriage Permit on an application made under section 73 and more particularly authorizes the Authority to attach any one or more of the conditions enumerated in section 74(2)(i)–(xii). The power to attach conditions under section 74(2) is however made subject to any Rules that may be made under the M.V.Act. Section 86(1) authorizes, the Transport Authority to cancel or suspend a Permit but on the conditions under section 86(1)(a)-(f) thereto. 37. It is clear from the aforesaid that width of the power conferred on the Authority for the purpose of grant and cancellation/suspension of Permits is subject to the parameters of the M.V.Act and Rules. The requirement of an Islander Identity Card/the Local Certificate is not a condition which can be found under sections 74(2) or 84 found to be a part of the A & N M.V.Rules, 2006. The conclusion must therefore be that the condition requiring production of Islander Identity Card/Local Certificate is without statutory backing. 38. The related question is whether the condition is discriminatory? 39. The added respondents, who are Local Autorickshaw Drivers and Operators, have put forth a persuasive argument of the condition being a necessary corollary to the geography and location of the A & N Islands. The Court has been taken through the Shekhar Singh Commission’s recommendations to the Supreme Court and the order passed by Supreme Court on 07.05.2002 for the purpose of preventing rampant immigration to the Islands with regard to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. However, the aforesaid would show that the recommendations and the Supreme Court order were directed against encroachers and for preservation of forests and the environment of the Islands. 40. The argument of the A & N Islands requiring affirmative measures for securing employment to local people and to “Islanders”, i.e. those who have lived in the Islands for a minimum of 10 years, is no doubt a compelling argument. It is common knowledge that the Administration is the predominant employer with very few private players offering employment opportunities to the local people. The geography/topography of the Islands poses further challenges in terms of limited resources. Hence, the STA’s deliberations for protecting employment opportunities for Islanders/local persons is a legitimate concern. 41. There are, however, several practical difficulties attached to this condition. The geography/topography of the Islands poses further challenges in terms of limited resources. Hence, the STA’s deliberations for protecting employment opportunities for Islanders/local persons is a legitimate concern. 41. There are, however, several practical difficulties attached to this condition. The first is the identification process for “Islanders” and the exclusion of those who have lived for several years in the Islands but have not completed the minimum base line of 10 years. Second, the over-arching violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution where non-Islanders may be at the receiving end of such discrimination cannot be ignored. 42. The argument of locals and Islanders forming a distinct class created on a reasonable classification would also be subject to a rationale nexus with the object of a law/bye-law. In the absence of the latter, the classification of Islanders as a group cannot be sustained. There is also nothing on record to show that all locals/Islands Autorickshaw Operators form a distinct and homogeneous class without any distinguishing features. 43. The aspect of discrimination in the matter of treating Islanders and non-islanders is pronounced particularly where non-islanders were issued permits for autorickshaws from 2007 onwards. It is irrelevant whether the Authorities issued such Permits without knowledge or intention. 44. Article 19(1)(g) is reasonably restricted by Article 19(6) but only in respect of making a law in the interest of the general public and in relation to professional or technical qualifications which are necessary for a trade or business carried on by the State. The decisions taken by STA in the Meetings are certainly not laws and cannot be seen as reasonable restrictions to the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 45. Therefore, the third issue is answered in favour of the petitioners i.e, the requirement of an Islander Identity Card/Local Certificate is discriminatory. 46. The argument that the decisions taken in the Minutes of Meetings were in exercise of the powers under section 68 of the Act or under Rule 50(1) of the A & N Islands M.V.Rules, 2006 or that the conditions have stood the test of time is as specious as the argument that the Court should have a hands-off approach in matters of policy decision. The Minutes of Meetings not being challenged for a number of years cannot anoint the meetings with the sanctity of law. The Minutes of Meetings not being challenged for a number of years cannot anoint the meetings with the sanctity of law. Further, there can never be a complete embargo on a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution from interfering in policy decisions if those decisions are found to violate the rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India. 47. As stated above, a policy of affirmative action for preserving the ecology of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands or protecting the employment opportunities of the Islanders in view of the limited resources may withstand judicial scrutiny if implemented in the manner prescribed under the Act and the Rules. Fourth Issue: Should the show cause notices and notices of cancellation/suspension be quashed? 48. The prayers in the writ petitions cover a range of reliefs from restraining the respondents from withdrawing No Objection Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners as well as the restriction on purchasing more than one autorickshaw. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the decisions taken by the STA in its Meetings. 49. It should be made clear at this stage that the answer to issue no. III, i.e. whether the STA could impose conditions/additional conditions by way of administrative meetings, has been answered against the respondents. This view was on the basis that there were, in reality, no additional conditions imposed by the STA after 2007. It is however not clear whether all the impugned conditions existed from 2007 and were made part of the Permits granted to the petitioners or whether the STA decided to impose subsequent conditions pursuant to the impugned Minutes of the Meetings. 50. It is clarified that inclusion of any condition which was not part of the original Permit granted by the STA would be subject to the rigours of the M.V.Act read with A & N Islands M.V.Rules, 2006 by way of publishing appropriate bye-laws and Rules as prescribed under the Act. 51. Therefore, the effect of the impugned notices of suspension/cancellation or even asking the petitioners to show cause would have to be assessed against the legality of the specific conditions in so far as they are backed by law. It would hence be irrelevant whether the conditions within the frame work of the M.V.Act, 1988 were imposed by the STA in the meetings or through deliberations. It would hence be irrelevant whether the conditions within the frame work of the M.V.Act, 1988 were imposed by the STA in the meetings or through deliberations. The M.V.Act prohibits transfer of Permits under section 82(1) with an exception in 82(2) followed by 3 provisos further qualifying the exception. Section 84 provides a list of general conditions which attach to all Permits. 52. Hence, the conditions imposed by the STA will have to be seen in the light of whether they fall within the statutory coverage of sections 82 and 84. If yes, the petitioners cannot be aggrieved by such conditions whether imposed by way of Meetings or otherwise. If no, the petitioners would certainly have a case for interference in addition to the fact that the conditions were imposed de hors the procedure prescribed under the M.V.Act and A&N Islands M.V.Rules, 2006. 53. The answer to the fourth issue would hence be as follows: (i) There is no scope for interference with regard to notices issued with specific regard to the transfer of Permits or against the persons who are otherwise unauthorized to drive the autorickshaw. (ii) There is no scope for interference with regard to conditions which formed part of the Permits at the time of issue and are within the parameters of the M.V.Act, including sections 73, 74, 82 and 86 thereof. (iii) The respondents shall be restrained from giving effect to the impugned notices including for suspension/cancellation of Permits only if the notices have been issued outside the statutory mandate of sections 82 and 86 of the M.V.Act. (iv) For Permits granted subsequent to 2007, the respondents shall comply with the above directions on the touchstone of the requirements of M.V.Act and the procedure prescribed under the said Act and the A&N Islands M.V.Rules, 2006. The STA shall also ensure that any subsequent condition, even if taken within the statutory mandate but not specified in the Permit, shall be communicated to all the stakeholders with reasonable advance notice. The STA shall not take any action in respect of the Permit before 4 weeks from the date of such communication. 54. Hence, the fourth Issue is answered in the form of the above directions and in part-satisfaction of the case sought to be made out by the petitioners. 55. The STA shall not take any action in respect of the Permit before 4 weeks from the date of such communication. 54. Hence, the fourth Issue is answered in the form of the above directions and in part-satisfaction of the case sought to be made out by the petitioners. 55. Most of the decisions shown on behalf of the respondents/added respondents on the legality of guidelines and decisions involved a specific Rules/Notification which was under challenge before the Court. 56. The constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(c) of Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulation of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 was under challenge before the Supreme Court in Rajdeep Ghosh vs. State of Assam and others. (2018)17 SCC 524 . Parents’ Association and another vs. Union of India and others, (2000) 2 SCC 657 dealt with framing of consolidated regulations for allotment of seats for higher educational courses for all permanent residents of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. There was however no argument in that case on whether the decisions were in conformity with a particular statute. Arun Barua vs. State of West Bengal, 2014 (3) CHN (CAL) 227 dealt with a Notification dated 29.01.2010 issued by the State West Bengal. The learned Single Judge of this Court proceeded to examine the validity of the said notification and the resolutions taken by the Road Transport Authorities rejecting the petitioners’ application for Permits. The Court however reserved the right of the petitioners to question the impugned resolution by appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The decision of the Supreme Court in Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association (Registered). Vs. Union of India and others, (2021) 8 SCC 511 proceeded on the basis that courts cannot engage with economic and fiscal regulatory measures including intricacies of trade and commence since Judges are not experts in these matters. 57. The present case hardly requires expertise; it is simply a matter of determining whether the conditions imposed by STA are within the framework of the M.V.Act and whether the conditions offend Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 58. On the other hand, Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd vs. Union of India and others, 2014 (10) SCC 673 places emphasis on Article 77 of the Constitution of India which provides the form in which the Executive must make and authenticate its orders and decisions. 58. On the other hand, Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd vs. Union of India and others, 2014 (10) SCC 673 places emphasis on Article 77 of the Constitution of India which provides the form in which the Executive must make and authenticate its orders and decisions. The Supreme Court held that the guidelines cannot be treated as an order of government in the absence of due authentication and promulgation thereof. Conclusion: 59. The above discussion persuades this Court to dispose of these writ petitions in terms of the answers given under the 4 issues and by way of the following directions. (i) The condition restraining transfer of Permits, or any other conditions to the same effect, cannot be seen as being outside the statutory frame work. There is no scope for interference with regard to notices issued with specific regard to the transfer of Permits or against the person who is otherwise unauthorized to drive the autorickshaw. (ii) There is no scope for interference with regard to conditions which formed a part of the Permits at the time of issue and are within the parameters of the M.V.Act, including sections 73, 74, 82 and 86 thereof. (iii) The respondents shall not give effect to the condition/requirement for production of Islander Identity Card/Local Certificate since such condition is not within the statutory contemplation. This condition has also been brought into effect through Meetings without following due procedure. (iv) The respondents shall not give effect to any condition which was imposed subsequent to the date of the grant of Permit. This would mean conditions which were not part of the Permit granted by the respondents to the petitioners. The Court finds substance in the petitioners’ contention that the petitioners could not have been and were indeed not aware of the additional conditions imposed by the STA through its Meetings after the initial grant of Permits. (v) The respondents shall only impose conditions within the mandate of the sections 73 & 74 of the M.V.Act for grant of new Permits and shall comply with the statutory requirements including under sections 84 and 85 of the M.V.Act, 1988. Any additional conditions, including that of production of Local Certificate/Islander Identity Card, will have to be put through the procedure envisaged under the M.V.Act and the A & N Islands M.V.Rules, 2006. Any additional conditions, including that of production of Local Certificate/Islander Identity Card, will have to be put through the procedure envisaged under the M.V.Act and the A & N Islands M.V.Rules, 2006. (vi) The respondents shall be restrained from giving effect to the impugned notices including for suspension/cancellation of Permits only if the notices were issued outside the statutory mandate of sections 82 and 86 of the M.V.Act. (vii) Any conditions which are imposed subsequently shall be given effect to after 4 weeks from the communication of the condition to the concerned stakeholder/s. 60. The interim order dated 10.01.2024 stands modified in terms of the above. 61. WPA/11/2024, WPA/846/2023, WPA/841/2023, WPA/842/2023, WPA/844/2023 along with all connected applications are disposed of in terms of this judgment. 62. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta.