Allahabad High Court Quashes Order Denying E-Rickshaw Permits to Permanent Residents of Lucknow, Citing Right to Livelihood

 

The Allahabad High Court has struck down a government order or policy that denied e-rickshaw permits to permanent residents of Lucknow on the ground that doing so violated their fundamental right to livelihood. The Court held that categorically excluding permanent residents from eligibility for permits amounted to an unreasonable restriction and was not justifiable under constitutional protections.

The case involved applicants who had sought e-rickshaw permits but were refused solely on the basis of their status as permanent residents. The authorities contended that such permits were reserved for “outsiders” or persons with certain local residential credentials, effectively discriminating against those residing within Lucknow. The petitioners challenged this as arbitrary and unjust.

The High Court examined the constitutional guarantee of the right to livelihood and held that the state cannot impose blanket bans or discriminatory criteria that deprive individuals of carrying on a lawful profession or business. The Court found that the denial of permit applications based solely on residency status lacked any valid state interest or compelling justification. It observed that while regulation of transport services may be permissible, it must adhere to principles of fairness, reasonableness and equal opportunity.

Consequently, the Court quashed the government’s policy or order as unconstitutional insofar as it barred permanent residents from obtaining e-rickshaw permits. It directed the relevant authorities to process and grant permit applications on merits, without regard to applicants’ residency status, and ensure that guidelines or eligibility criteria comply with constitutional safeguards.

This judgement underscores that the “right to carry on a trade or business” — including working as e-rickshaw drivers — is a facet of the fundamental right to livelihood, and state regulation must not arbitrarily curtail it. By invalidating the discriminatory permit regime, the Court reaffirmed that equal access to livelihood opportunities must be preserved, and that regulatory mechanisms must be fair, transparent, and constitutionally valid.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community