respondent cannot reject the appellant's application, which is against the statutory right of the appellant. Further, in the above mentioned Mithilesh Garg case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that Section 80(2), which is the harbinger of Liberalisation, provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. Therefore, in view of the liberalized policy of grant of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the grant of permit is the rule and the refusal of permit an exception. Hence, from the overall analysis of the facts and circumstances of this instant case and also, taking into consideration the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a lenient and liberal view has to be taken in view of liberalized policy enshrined in the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and also giving due weight by giving the benefit of the benevolent provisions of the Act and by giving paramount consideration of public interest and above all, the Government has ordered lifting the ban on grant of new autorickshaw permits throughout the State, this Tribunal is of the view that the respondent has rejected the appellant's application for new grant on unacceptable and unsustainable grounds and hence, needs interference. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is hereby set aside and the appellant is entitled to get the contract carriage autorickshaw permit, subject to the production of valid necessary documents. Hence, this appeal deserves to be allowed and thus, the points are answered accordingly.
