Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4814-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15458 of 2024 Petitioner :- V K Automobiles Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Challenge in the writ petition is to orders dated 14.09.2024 and 16.09.2024 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively. 3. By the order dated 14.09.2024 passed by the District Magistate,Varanasi, registration of e-rikshaws has been banned with immediate effect. The order dated 16.09.2024 is to the same effect. 4. A similar controversy came up for consideration in Writ A No. 69 of 2024 (Shree Vindavan Auto Sales v. State of U.P.). The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted here-in- below:- "14. Its perusal reveals that the restrictions contemplated by Rule 178 are with regard to the speed or with regard to restricting or prohibiting use of motor vehicles, generally or any particular class or classes in any area or any road. This provision does not contemplate or empowers the respondents to ban registration of new vehicles. The impugned restriction is therefore, beyond the scope of Rule 178 and hence, unsustainable. 15. We are therefore, constrained to hold that apart from the restriction on speed and or roads and area of operation, no other restriction has the sanction of law. Therefore, the impugned orders insofar as they ban registration of new e-rickshaws etc is without legal sanction. 16. Although, it is sought to be contended that restrictions of registration of new motor vehicles is in public interest and to regulate the flow of traffic, and various issues in this regard have been highlighted in the paragraphs of the counter affidavit quoted herein above, the same does not improve the case of the respondents. In case the situation is getting out of hand, nothing prevents the legislature or the rule making authority from bringing about suitable enactments/amendments in the existing statute or the rules framed therein to achieve the desired objectives which is also the mandate of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. However, the situation howsoever bad, cannot empower the authorities to exercise power or jurisdiction which they do not possess under the existing law or the rules. 17. The respondents without any authority have passed the impugned order(s). In its counter affidavit the concerned respondent has stated reasons which indicated failure on its part and on part of the administration to manage and control traffic and certain consequential law and order situations arising therefrom. 18. It has also cited lacunae and omissions in legislation that is hampering regulation of the e-rickshaws and check on their drivers. 19. Such averments, allegations apprehensions and expression of incapabilities cannot form the basis of arbitrary and illegal actions of issuance of the impugned notification and office order, which are also beyond jurisdiction. 20. For the foregoing reasons all these petitions are hereby allowed and the impugned Notification No.361/Sa Pra Sha/2023/Mathura dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration/Registering Authority), Mathura and the Office Order No. 3961/Sa Pra/Ka Aa/e-Rickshaw/e-Auto/2024 dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration/Registering Authority), Agra, are herein quashed." 5. In view of the afore-noted judgment and for the reasons given therein, even this writ petition is liable to be and is hereby allowed. 6. The orders dated 14.09.2024 and 16.09.2024 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Aditya Tripathi Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad