Supreme Court: Two Minibus Operators Protest Against Restrictions

Aleem Domun and Molin Ama Noullah and operate both "contract nozzles." In their complaint, drafted by the attorney Me Pazhany Rangasmay, they explain that they each hold a permit in accordance with Article 76 of the Road Traffic Act.

However, the NTA and the Ministry of Public Infrastructure decided to limit the scope of their operation. Aleem Domun says that now he can only convey the employees of two firms, and Fadil Confection Co. Ltd. Employees of Nobility and Shibani Inwear Co Ltd. About Molin Ama Mullah, it may carry school since the new measure came into force.

Both complainants deplore the consequences that flow from this measure. They claim in their complaint that their vehicles no longer have access to the airport.

They suggest that the NTA and the Ministry of Public Infrastructure relied on Article 76 (6) (a) of the Road Traffic Act to approve such a measure. They point out that Article confers no power to the defendants (NTA and the Ministry of Public Infrastructure) to enable them to impose conditions which are not specified in the law.

Both complainants argue that the measure introduced by the NTA and the Ministry of Public Infrastructure their prejudice and violated their rights prescribed in Article 3 of the Constitution.

They also believe that the extent of the NTA and the Ministry of Public Infrastructure is a glaring example of usurpation of legislative power by the executive. "That Plaintiff obverse reliance on section 76 (6) (a) of the Road Traffic Act by the Executive, Represented by the Defendants, to limit the scope of operation of Plaintiffs activities, is a glaring and unacceptable usurpation of the power of the Legislature by the Executive, "reads the complaint.