IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/11/2026 (IA NO: CAN/1/2026) Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Vs. Shri Deepak Uraon With MAT/12/2026 (IA NO: CAN/1/2026) Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Vs. Shri Ganasekaran With MAT/13/2026 (IA NO: CAN/1/2026) Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Vs. Shri Kalyan Debnath and Others With MAT/14/2026 (IA NO: CAN/1/2026) Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Vs. Shri Manoranjan Debnath and Others With MAT/61/2024 Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others 2 Vs. Rashtriya Janata Auto Union and another Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the appellants Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Ajith Prasad … for the respondent no.2 (in MAT/61/2024) Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the respondent no.1 (in MAT/61/2024) Mr. Tapan Kumar Das … for the respondents [in MAT/13/2026, MAT/14/2026) July 29, 2026 [SR] Item No. 1 to 5 1. These appeals by the Administration have been filed with some delay and in some cases substantial delay in a few others even after leave was granted by a Coordinate Bench to file such appeals. Such leave was occasioned since similar questions arise in these appeals as in the other appeals being MAT/11/2026, MAT/12/2026, MAT/13/2026, Mat/14/2026 and MAT/61/2024, filed in time. 2. Having regard to the fact that all the appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 12th February, 2024, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeals and they shall be heard along with other appeals. All applications for condonation of delay in these appeals are allowed and disposed of. 3 3. As already stated hereinabove the appeals arise out a judgment and order dated 12th February, 2024 passed by the Single Bench of this Court. The single bench was seized of five several writ petitions that are mentioned in the cause title of the judgment. A few other writ petitions also came to be disposed of based on the aforesaid judgment that are not separately mentioned herein. 4. The subject matter of the writ petition before the Single Bench was certain orders and/or directions sought to be implemented by the State Transport Authority within the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, purportedly framed under the Rules of 2006 framed by the A & N Administration under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 5. The sum and substance of the grievances of the writ petitioners are as follows. To ply an auto rickshaw within the islands a permit is required to be obtained from the STA i.e. available only to ‘Islanders’. The expression ‘Islanders’ was defined under the aforesaid Rules, as inter alia, those who have lived for generations here and/or have acquired immovable properties herein and/or those who have lived here for 10 years or more. 6. The writ petitioners claimed that they are citizens of India but admittedly not Islanders and the refusal by Administration to issue auto rickshaw permits to them is 4 violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India apart from Article 14. 7. The stand of the Islanders here who were opposing the writ petitions is that there are several laws prevalent in these Islands that have reserved exclusive rights to the ‘Islanders’ only. Such restrictions are necessary to preserve the geographical identity, flora and fauna and the limited recourses available here. There are several other arguments raised in support of the restriction for auto rickshaw permits to Islanders only. 8. Mr. D.C.Kabir, learned senior advocate submits that individuals claiming to be Islanders purchased more than one auto rickshaw, in some cases ten to fifteen and are plying the same with the help of individuals from the mainland. The Rules were admittedly framed by the Administration in the year 2006 under the M. V. Act, 1988. Admittedly only a permit holder can ply an auto rickshaw and that too a single one. Such permit is not transferable. Such rule is aimed at securing a source of income for unemployed islanders. The principal source of employment here is under the government. Private employment is scarce as there are very few private enterprises here. 9. Admittedly the new restrictions, orders and directions issued by the STA, post 2006 have been on the plying of auto rickshaws are based only on deliberations by 5 the STA in its meetings. The legislative competence of the STA and its authority to frame the restrictions, orders and Rules is questioned by the writ petitioners. 10. The single bench has framed the following issues and answered the same after a brief discussion as follows: 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? 11. In respect of issue no.I, the court answered that the Administration could impose restriction on transfer of permits by its holders. The Court is in agreement with such finding. 12. This Court is also in agreement with the finding of the Single Bench on Issue No.2. Indeed restrictions, orders, directions and stipulations sought to be enforced as law by the STA in the Islands cannot emanate from the purported decisions taken in deliberations of the meetings of the STA. The authority to frame such Rules (restrictions, orders, directions and stipulations) are seriously questionable. As to whether the said restrictions and orders can at all constitute enforceable Rules or whether the STA has authority to frame such Rules in the manner 6 indicated above is equally questionable. No such power is available either under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 or the Rules of 2006 framed thereunder. The STA which is a creature of statute and rules has clearly acted outside the scope of its authority. 13. This Court is however not in agreement with sweeping finding against Issue No. 3 that any of the conditions, orders or restrictions imposed could be annulled by this Court as per se discriminatory. This is notwithstanding the fact that this Court finds that the restriction sought to be imposed have doubtful legislative competence or the authority of law. 14. Counsel for the parties are ad idem, that the Administration proposes to bring in a new set of lawfully enforceable Rules, factoring in the interest of the Islanders and the rights of all citizens of the country under Part III of the Constitution of India. The Administration would have to adopt a challenging yet appropriate balancing act in bringing forth new Rules in accordance with law of this Country. 15. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and particularly given fact that the Administration proposes to bring forth a lawful and enforceable set of Rules with appropriate legal competence and authority of law, this 7 Court is of the view that any further discussion in these appeals would be rather academic. 16. What however remains to be addressed are the prosecutions and/or coercive actions already taken by the Administration since 2006 till date. As an interim measure and to give breathing space to the parties this Court directs that the same may continue, except that actual prosecution and collection of fines from the defaulting auto rickshaw pliers, shall not be enforced. 17. The fate of such proceedings shall be determined in terms of and as per the proposed Rules that the Administration intends to frame. 18. For the aforesaid purpose the Administration shall be at liberty to seek necessary amendment to the Rules of 2006 themselves. Let the same be done in terms of the procedure prescribed under the Constitution of India, factoring in legislative competence, Rule making power and the authority conferred on the administration particularly under Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, and the rights of citizens of the country as a whole, inter alia, under Part III of the Constitution of India. 19. The prosecutions already initiated and ongoing under the MV Act, 1988 and the Original Rules of 2006 as they stand may however continue and be taken to their logical conclusion. 8 20. The applications pending for transfer of permits in favour of third parties shall be considered only to the extent of transfer to the Islanders and all other application for transfer of auto rickshaw permits shall have to abide by the policy decision and the consequent Rules to be framed by the Administration. 21. The impugned judgment and order shall stands modified accordingly. 22. It is reasonably expected that new Rules, are brought into force and notified by the Administration as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five months from date. 23. With the aforesaid observations, all appeals shall stand disposed of. 24. Consequently, all connected applications are also disposed of. 25. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)