8.In the considered view of this Court, the reason that was assigned in the impugned notice dated 03.01.2023 as if there was a mistake and it is sought to be rectified by calling for the original records from the permit holder, does not really convince this Court. If there was really a mistake, it is quite curious that the renewal was happening at least from 2015 onwards wherein, the route was specified as all motorable roads in the Union Territory of Puducherry. By virtue of these permits, the vehicles had also plied on all the motorable roads in the Union Territory of Puducherry. If really there was a mistake, atleast at the time of renewal in the year 2022, the respondent ought to have woken up and specified the route for which the renewal of permit is granted. Even that has not been done and the renewal has been granted till the year 2027 by specifying that the vehicle can ply in all motorable roads in the Union Territory of Puducherry. It is very hard to believe that a mistake is sought to be rectified through the impugned notice dated 03.01.2023, since the so-called mistake has been permitted to be continued by the respondent atleast for a period of 7 to 8 years. A mistake can be rectified if it had been taken place during the recent past and it is brought to the notice of the authority. Whereas, in the present case, the status that is continuing nearly for eight years is sought to be reversed by means of rectification of a mistake. Such a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis decision taken by the respondent virtually takes away vested
