Auto Rickshaw Permit | After HP High Court Terms 'Self-Driving' Condition Arbitrary, State Relaxes Rules For Widows & Incapacitated Owners
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently disposed of a writ petition after the State Transport Authority (STA) issued new instructions relaxing the condition requiring an auto-rickshaw owner to personally drive the vehicle as a prerequisite for the grant of a permit.
The relaxation was made after the High Court observed that the rigid restriction was unreasonable and arbitrary, as it failed to account for several real-life situations in which the owner might be unable to drive the vehicle due to circumstances beyond their control.
The Court had emphasised that regulatory conditions that affect livelihoods must be flexible and sensitive to genuine human limitations, rather than rigid.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, in the interim orders leading up to the final disposal, had remarked thus:
"This Court is of the considered view that imposition of condition that the owner of the Auto Rickshaw shall have to drive the same, itself appears to be arbitrary. This is for the reason that there can be more than one eventuality which may lead to a situation, whereas the owner of the Auto Rickshaw may not be in a position to drive the vehicle himself."
The Court had further stated that: “Reasonable restrictions are always welcome but restrictions which are unreasonable strike at the foundation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.”
The petitioners, who were auto-rickshaw owners in Himachal Pradesh, challenged a long-standing condition imposed by the State Transport Authorities which mandated that the owner of the auto-rickshaw must personally drive the vehicle and could not engage a driver.
The petitioners contended that the imposed condition was arbitrary and impractical, as it did not take into account genuine situations where the owner might be unable to drive due to illness, physical incapacity, or other compelling circumstances.
They further brought into court's notice a situation where one of the auto rickshaw driver was suffering from cancer who required money for the treatment and the income could only be generated if someone was engagd to ply his Auto Rickshaw.
The core issue before the court was “whether the State could lawfully insist that auto-rickshaw permits be granted only to those owners who personally drive their vehicles, and whether such a restriction was constitutionally valid.”
The High Court observed that the imposed condition that the owner of the Auto Rickshaw shall have to drive on their own, was arbitrary.
The Court stated that there may be more than one eventuality which may lead to situation where the owner of the auto rickshaw is not in a position to drive the vehicle himself.
The Court remarked that the restriction ignored practical realities and situations like accidents, medical incapacity, or death of the permit holder.
However, the Court suggested that if the State is concerned about the misuse of permits by the rich, a reasonable restriction would be to limit the number of permits per person.
Following the Court's intervention, the Additional Advocate General apprised the Court that the Secretary, State Transport Authority, had issued necessary instructions to redress the grievance. The new amendments to the STA condition dated 11.07.1990 are as follows:
- Those under the unemployed youth category who become medically unfit, physically challenged, or in the event of their death, their widow/legal heirs, are now permitted to engage a driver possessing a valid driving licence.
- Unemployed youth who are medically unfit or physically challenged may also apply for auto-rickshaw permits, subject to the condition that they shall engage a driver possessing a valid driving licence.
The instructions further mandated that the permit holder retain operational control of the auto-rickshaw and that no subletting, renting, or commercial transfer of the permit shall occur.
In light of these developments, the Court disposed of the petition, noting that the grievance of the petitioners stood redressed.
Case Name: Sh.Satpal and others v/s State of H.P. and others
Case No.: CWP No.4893 of 2022
Date of Decision: 24.12.2025
For the Petitioners: Mr.T.S. Bhogal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General