UMA PADIYAR HOUSE vs K.M. NAVAS, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam; The Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam; Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

W.A.No.848 of 2016 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1944** **WA NO. 848 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENTWPC 38105/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):** **UMA PADIYAR HOUSE NO.10/565, AMARAVATHY,COCHIN-682001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.ANUMOD B.NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 7 RESPONDENT 1,2, & 4 IN W.P.(C):** - **1 K.M. NAVAS KARIPPAI HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O.,ALUVA 683101.** - **2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM-682030.** - **3 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM-682030.** - **4 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.No.848 of 2016 2 ## **J U D G M E N T Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 2022** ## **S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.** Before the writ court, petitioner in W.P.© No.38105/2015, has sought for the ## following reliefs: - (i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P8 and quash the same. (ii) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows; 3. According to the appellant, he is the holder of a regular permit to operate on the city route Aluva-Konthuruthy, issued as early on 29.4.1997 and the said permit was renewed from time to time and valid upto 28.4.2012. This is the only service connecting Aluva with Konthuruthy and this permit is included in the total number of city permits allowed as per Notification issued under Section 71(3) of the M.V. Act. 5. It is submitted by the appellant that he has submitted the application for renewal of the permit on 29.3.2012 itself, within the statutory period and filed an application seeking replacement of the existing vehicle with a later model vehicle. W.A.No.848 of 2016 3 Both the applications have been considered by the Regional Transport Authority – the 2nd respondent on 17.8.2015 and as per Exhibit P8 proceedings, the applications have been allowed. 6. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent viz., K.M.Navas, who is a rival operator, challenged Exhibit P8 proceedings by filing W.P.(C) No.38105/2015 contending that the renewal application as well as replacement application has been considered together, which is not permissible. It was also contended that the permit automatically ceased to exist when the vehicle, which was issued with the permit attains 15 years. This Court granted an ex parte interim stay in the writ petition and the appellant filed a petition to vacate the interim order and also filed another writ petition permitting to continue the service by re-issuing temporary permit so long as the stay order is in force. 7. It is also submitted by the appellant that when these petitions came up for consideration, a learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, disposed of the writ petitions quashing Exhibit P8 referring to the decision in **Usman Vs. RTA Malappuram** [(2015 (4) KLT 25)]. 8. It is submitted by the appellant that in the said decision, simultaneous consideration was not allowed, because of the fact that the renewal application was not maintainable since the same was not in consonance with Rule 172 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 9. According to the appellant, it is mandatory that without mentioning a W.A.No.848 of 2016 4 vehicle covered by the permit or sought to be replaced, the application is not maintainable and in the instant case, the appellant's application for renewal of permit, as evident from Exhibit P5, was perfectly in accordance with the statutory provisions and Exhibit P8 order is perfectly legal and in accordance with the provisions; and that, therefore, the quashing of Exhibit P8 resulted in irreparable injury and hardship to the appellant. 10. It is also submitted by the appellant that even the correctness of the decision referred by the learned Single is under consideration of the Honourable Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition filed against the judgement approving the said decision and the permit holder was allowed to continue the service on the above said route. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought to have found that Exhibit P5 and P6 applications are perfectly in accordance with the statute and ought to have been dismissed the writ petition itself. 12. Material on record discloses that there was yet another W.P.© No.10898/2016 considered along with W.P.© No.38105/2015 and as the facts and circumstances of the case are similar, they were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 29[th] March, 2016. 13. Exhibit P8 is the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam held on 17/8/2015 impuged in W.P.© No.38105/2015. After considering the materials on record and taking note of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in **Usman v. Regional Transport Authority** , reported in [2015(4) W.A.No.848 of 2016 5 KLT 25], Exhibit P8 dated 17.8.2015 – the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, was set aside. ## 14. Thereafter, writ court issued the following directions “2. The simultaneous grant of the renewed permit and replacement of the vehicle has already been quashed in W.P.(C). No. 38105/2015. The petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 10898/2016 however maintains that she is entitled to re-issue of temporary permit for which Ext.P5 application is put in. The petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 38105/2015 vehemently opposes the plea contending that it is a notified route. Whether there can be a re-issue of temporary permit or not is a matter to be considered by the respondents herein. The respondents shall hear the petitioners in WP(C). Nos. 10898/2016 and 38105/2015 and take the proceedings to a logical end. The same shall be done within a period of two weeks from today. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation who is an operator on the route shall also be heard in the exercise. 3. The question of replacement of the vehicle will depend on the renewal of the regular permit. The application for replacement shall be considered after the Regional Transport Authority considers the renewal of regular permit. The respondents concerned shall complete the exercise within a period of one month. The writ petitions are disposed of." ## 15. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed. ## 16. When the matter came up for hearing, inviting attention of this Court to a decision made in W.P.(C) No.2175 of 2015, Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar – learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that the decision in **Usman's case** stated supra, W.A.No.848 of 2016 6 has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Bench and in such circumstances, instant W.A No.848/2016 is to be dismissed. 17. Though Mr.K.V.Gopinathan Nair – learned counsel for appellant, made an attempt to distinguish the judgment in **Usman's case,** by referring to paragraph 4 of the said judgment, we are not not inclined to accept the said contentions. 18. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that the application for renewal of regular permit was considered independently by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and therefore, the impugned judgement requires interference. 19. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the materials available on record. 20. In Agenda No.55 in Exhibit P8 proceedings dated 17.8.2015, the first agenda was to consider the application for renewal of the regular permit of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-07-K-3438 and the 2[nd] agenda was to consider the application for replacement of stage carriage bearing No.Kl-07-K-3438 on the route Aluva – Konthuruty, by another stage carriage bearing No.KL-07-AH-9866. 21. Both the applications have been taken up on the said day, simultaneously, and concluded thus, which is reproduced hereunder: “Hence renewal of regular permit and replacement of the vehicle is granted subject to the clearance of government dues and arrears of tax in respect of the old vehicle.” 22. Decision in **Usman's case** has been affirmed by a Hon'ble Division W.A.No.848 of 2016 7 Bench of this Court in W.A No.2175/2015 filed against W.P.© No.24250/2015, and Usman & the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram were the respondents in the above said writ appeal. 23. The issue before the Hon'ble Division Bench was that whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was open for the appellant therein to submit application for renewal of permit, without mentioning in his application about the vehicle number with regard to which, he sought renewal of the permit ? 24. The appellant therein also sought for permission for sale of vehicle and that the vehicle for which permit was issued has already been transferred and that, the order impugned therein clearly contemplates replacement by new vehicle. 25. On the aspects of consideration of regular permit and replacement of vehicles, and also considering **Usman's** case, the Hon'ble Division Bench, held as follows: “10. It is relevant to look into certain statutory provisions before further considering the issue. Section 81 provides for duration and renewal of permits which is to the following effect: “81. **Duration and renewal of permits.** - (1) A permit other than a temporary permit issued under section 87 or a special permit issued under subsection (8) of section 88 shall be effective 53 from the date of issuance or renewal thereof for a period of five years. Provided that where the permit is countersigned under subsection (1) of section 88, such countersignature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit. (2) A permit may be renewed on in application made not less than 15 days W.A.No.848 of 2016 8 before the date of its expiry. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. (4)The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the following grounds, namely :- (a) the financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or decrees for payment of debts remaining unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, prior to the date of consideration of the application; (b) the applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of 53. Substituted, by S. 26, ibid, for “without renewal” ( w.e.f. 14-111994 ). - (c) consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service by the applicant, namely :- - (i) plying any vehicle - - (1) without payment of tax due on such vehicle ; - (2) without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for payment of such tax and then stop the plying of such vehicle ; (3) on any unauthorised route ; (ii) making unauthorised trips: Provided that in computing the number of punishments for the purpose of clause (b), any punishment stayed by the order of an appellate authority shall not be taken into account : Provided further that no application under this sub-section shall be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant. (5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a temporary permit has W.A.No.848 of 2016 9 been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded. Section 83 provides that holder of a permit with the permission of the authority can replace any vehicle covered by the permit. Section 86 provides for cancellation and suspension of permit. Section 86(1)(c) which is relevant for the present case is quoted below: “86. **Cancellation and suspension of permits.-** (1) The Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit – ..... (c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit.” Rules have been framed under the Rules. Rule 159 provides for entry of registration marks compulsorily at the time of issue of permit. Rule 159(1) and (2) is quoted below: - “159. **Permits-entry of registration marks compulsory.** Time of entry.-(1) No permit shall be issued before entering the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has been entered therein. (2) When the applicant is unable to produce the certificate of registration on the date of his application for permit, owing to the fact that he is not on that date in possession of the vehicle duly registered, or for some other reason, the applicant shall within one month of the sanctioning of the application by the Transport Authority or such longer period of periods not exceeding four months in the aggregate as the Authority may specify, produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before that authority so that the particulars of the registration mark may be entered in the permit. In the event of any applicant failing to produce the certificate of registration within the period specified by the W.A.No.848 of 2016 10 Transport Authority, the Authority may revoke its sanction of the application.” Rule 172 deals with renewal of permit. Rule 172 is quoted below: “172. **Renewal of permits.** -(1) Every application for the renewal of a permit shall be made to the Transport Authority which issued the permit. (2) Application for renewal of permit shall be in Form “PRA” and shall be accompanied by the permit where the motor vehicle is subject to a hire purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement, the certificate or communication, or as the case may be, the declaration referred to in sub-section (8) of Section 51 of the Act. (3) **Production of permit.-** (a) The Transport Authority sanctioning an application for renewal of a permit shall call upon the permit holder to produce the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and endorse the renewal in the permit and return them to the holder. The Transport Authority may revoke its sanction of the application for renewal if the permit holder fails to produce the documents aforesaid within one month from the dater of despatch of the order requiring the production of the records. Provided that the Transport Authority may, if satisfied on an application made to it in writing grant an extension or extensions of time not exceeding four months in the aggregate for the production of records. (b) The Transport Authority may delegate the powers conferred on it by clause (a) to its Secretary in cases where the Secretary has sanctioned the application for renewal of the permit.” Ruled 143 provides for application for permit, Rule 144 provides form of permit. Rule 159(1) is couched in a negative form with a mandate that no permit shall be issued before entering the registration mark of the W.A.No.848 of 2016 11 vehicle in it. Thus before a permit is issued, registration mark is to be entered in the permit. Rule 159(2) grants discretion to the RTA to extend time for submitting registration mark. But the Rule clearly indicate that without entry of registration mark of the vehicle no permit shall be issued. Permit is defined in Section 2(31). The definition of the permit clearly indicate that permit is authorisation of use of a motor vehicle. Permit thus is attached to a motor vehicle. As per Section 83, a vehicle may be replaced by holder of a permit. The phrase “holder of a permit” is used in Section 83 which clearly indicate that replacement of vehicle is contemplated during currency of a permit. As noted above, in the present case, this Court by judgment dated 12.09.2013 had directed the authority to issue clearance certificate keeping the permit under suspension. Time for replacement of permit was also to be specified. There is nothing on record that any time for replacement of the vehicle was specified by the Transport Authority. The replacement of vehicle was permissible only till validity of the period of permit. As noted above, as per Section 86(1)(c) when the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit, the RTA is empowered to cancel or suspend the permit. In the present case, by order of the Court dated 12.09.2013 permit was directed to be kept under suspension. The suspension of the permit continued till the validity of the period of permit, i.e., 15.04.2014. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that under Rule 172(3) also the RTA is empowered to grant time to submit registration certificate of vehicle for endorsement of renewal, hence the Rules does not contemplate that there should be availability of the vehicle at the time when renewal is applied. 12. Judgment of the Full Bench in **Narayanan v. RTA, Thrichur** (1980 KLT 249 [F.B.]) has been relied on. The Full Bench had occasion to consider the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Rules 175 and 186 of the Motor W.A.No.848 of 2016 12 Vehicles Rules, 1961. Rules 175 and 186 were pari materia to Rules 159 and 172 of the 1989 Rules. In the aforesaid case, the Full Bench was considering Rule 186 in the context of an application for grant of permit. The Full Bench had also referred to Form PSPA under which application was required to be given for grant of permit. The Full Bench made the following observations in paragraph 5: “5. It was strongly contended before us by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that a mere perusal of the Form P. S. P. A. and more particularly items 6 to 8 contained therein, is sufficient to show that an applicant for a stage carriage permit has to mention in the application itself the 'registration mark', 'type', 'seating capacity' and 'maximum laden weight' of the vehicle. On this basis it is argued that it is mandatory under S.46 read along with R.175(a) that the particulars of the vehicle proposed to be put on the road should be furnished by an applicant in his application for the grant of the permit. This argument, however, overlooks the significant fact that item 16 contained in the very same form (P.S. P A.) contemplates that an applicant may not have obtained possession of the vehicle on the date of the application and hence may not be in a position to furnish the aforesaid particulars. Item 16 of the form reads: "I / We have come in possession of the vehicle on ......... I / We have not yet obtained possession of the vehicle and I / We understand that the permit will not be issued until I / we have done so and have produced the certificate of registration." In this context reference may also be usefully made to R.186 which reads: "186(1). No permit shall be issued until the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has been entered therein. (2) When the applicant is unable to produce the certificate of registration on the date of his application for the permit, owing to W.A.No.848 of 2016 13 the fact that he is not on that date in possession of the vehicle duly registered, or for some other reason, the applicant shall within one month of the sanctioning of the application by the Regional or State Transport Authority, or such longer period or periods not exceeding four months in the aggregate as the Authority may specify, produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before that Authority in order that the particulars of the registration mark may be entered in the permit. In the event of any applicant failing to produce the certificate of registration within the period specified by the Transport Authority, the Authority may revoke its sanction of the application. (3) The power vested in the Regional or State Transport Authority under sub-r.(2) shall also be exercised by its delegate in respect of orders passed under the delegated powers." In our opinion, sub-r. (2) extracted above makes it very clear that it is legally open to the Regional / State Transport Authority to sanction the grant of permit to an applicant even in a case where the applicant was not, on the date of his application for the permit, in possession of the vehicle duly registered and was, on that account or for some other reason, unable to produce the certificate of registration on the date of his application for the permit. In such cases, the applicant should produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before the Regional / State Transport Authority within one month of the sanctioning of the application by such authority or such longer period or periods not exceeding four months in the aggregate as the Authority may specify. We entertain no doubt that the provisions contained in R.175(a) (inclusive of the contents of the Form P.S. P.A) and R.186 have to be read together. On such a combined reading it becomes clear that there is no mandatory obligation cast on an applicant for the grant of a stage carriage W.A.No.848 of 2016 14 permit to furnish in his application the particulars of the stage carriage vehicle proposed to be used by him for operating the service in the event of the permit being granted in his favour. It will not, therefore, be legally right or proper to treat as invalid an application for a stage carriage permit which does not contain particulars of the vehicle proposed to be used or to disqualify or supersede an applicant, who is otherwise found suitable for the grant of a permit, merely on the ground that he had not furnished in the application the particulars of the vehicle owned or possessed by him.” In the above context the Full Bench held that it is not necessary that the applicant should possess the vehicle on the date of making an application for permit. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law laid down by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case. The law laid down by the Full Bench was in the context of application for permit. The Full Bench was not considering the case of renewal of permit and the said judgment cannot be said to lay down any law that at the time of renewal of permit, having a vehicle is not necessary. 13. Rule 172(2) provides that application of renewal for permit shall be in Form 'PRA'. Form PRA as contained in the Rules contains item No.2 which is to the following effect: ## “....2. registration mark of the vehicle covered by the permit” Thus the application for renewal must refer to the registration mark of the vehicle covered by the permit. As noted above permit is issued in the context of a vehicle and renewal of permit is sought in the context of the vehicle. It is true that holder of a permit can get his vehicle replaced during the currency of the permit. In the event the holder replaces his vehicle the permit shall be treated to be a permit with regard to the replaced vehicle and number of that vehicle is to be given in item No.2 as W.A.No.848 of 2016 15 noted above. 14. Rule 172(3) empowers the RTA sanctioning an application for renewal to call upon the holder to produce the registration certificate of the vehicle and at that juncture the RTA has power to grant time to produce the registration certificate. Rule 172(3) uses the words “call upon the permit holder to produce the registration certificate of the vehicle and endorse the renewal in the permit and return to the holder”. “The vehicle” obviously refers to the vehicle in the context of which application for renewal is made. Thus time for producing registration certificate which can be extended by the Transport Authority under Section 172(3) is the time for producing registration certificate of the vehicle for which renewal has been sought. 15. An application for renewal of permit without there being a vehicle with the application is not contemplated by Rule 172. Judgment of the learned Single Judge in **Aboobacker v. RTA** (2005 [1] KLT 987) relied by the counsel for the appellant was again a case where this Court was considering Rule 159. In the above context this Court held that it was not mandatory to produce the records of the vehicle at the time of considering the application for permit. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law laid down in the case. But the above case again being a case of grant of permit has no occasion to interpret Rule 172. Learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the judgment in **Krishna Das v. S.T.A.T. Ernakulam** (1991 KHC 376) and contended that ground on which an application for renewal of permit can be rejected is mentioned in Section 81(4) which is exhaustive and the said ground does not contemplate rejection of renewal on the ground of non-availability of the vehicle. As noted above, Section 86(1)(c) clearly contemplates cancellation and suspension of a permit when the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit. It does not appeal to reason that a ground which is sufficient for cancellation or suspension of the permit is not W.A.No.848 of 2016 16 relevant for deciding the renewal application. In the event, a permit is under suspension, after the expiry of the period of suspension, an application is made for renewal, can it be said that the Transport Authority is powerless to reject the renewal on the ground that the permit is under suspension. The answer shall be obviously, yes. A permit which has been suspended and validity expired during suspension of the permit can very well be rejected on the aforesaid ground. To hold otherwise, shall not advance the object of the Act. The observation which has been relied by a Division Bench to hold that grounds mentioned in Section 81(4) are exhaustive were confined for the purpose of evaluating the financial condition of the applicant for renewal of the permit. Thus the said observations cannot be read beyond that. It is useful to quote paragraph 12 which is to the following effect: “ 12. As we have answered the first question against the appellant in W. A No. 34 of 1991, it is not necessary to consider the second question regarding the ambit of S.81(4) of the 1988 Act. But on a reading of the Section we agree with the learned single Judge that the grounds mentioned in that sub-section are exhaustive and not illustrative for the purpose of evaluating the financial condition of an applicant for renewal of a permit.” 16. In the facts of the present case where the 2 nd respondent could not replace the vehicle during the currency of the permit and there was no vehicle number being endorsed in the permit, it was a fit case where the Transport Authority ought to have rejected the application for renewal. 17. Learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of this Court in Bhouman v. State of Kerala (1975 KLT 357). In the said case the Court was considering Sections 58 and 60 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which relates to renewal of the permit. In the above case, vehicle for which permit was issued was seized and fresh registration certificate was issued in favour of the hire W.A.No.848 of 2016 17 purchase company. Petitioner in the said case made an application and prayed that renewal be granted. Referring to Form PRA, the learned Single Judge held that when the owner ceases to own the vehicle for which permit was issued he was not entitled to renewal of his permit. The following was laid down in paragraph 5: “5. S.2(20) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which defines 'permit' reads: " 'Permit' means the document issued by the Commissioner or a State or Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage, or stage carriage, or authorising the owner as a private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle; " S. 47 of the Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority in considering the application for such stage carriage permit. S.47(1)(a) is as follows: "47. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit.- (1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely - (a) the interests of the public generally;" Rule 177A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961 contains the guiding principles for the grant, variation, suspension or cancellation of a stage carriage permit. As per this rule, the applicants for the permit shall first be screened and those who are found to be unsuitable on one or more of the principles laid down in sub-r.(3) shall be disqualified. One of the principles laid down for disqualifying an applicant is his financial instability. R.205 of the Rules insists that the application for renewal of a permit shall be in form 'PRA'. As per form 'PRA', the registration mark of the vehicle covered by the permit is to be furnished in the application for renewal. S.60 of the Act provides for the cancellation and suspension of the permit. S.60(1)(c) and (e) W.A.No.848 of 2016 18 reads: "60. Cancellation and suspension of permits. (1) The Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit - (a) ............ (b) ............ (c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle or vehicles covered by the permit; or (d) ............. (e) if the holder of the permit, not being a private carrier's permit, fails without reasonable cause to use the vehicle or vehicles for the purposes for which the permit was granted; or". The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that Ext. P-2 is an order under S.58 of the Act refusing to entertain an application for renewal of the permit and it is not an order under S.60 cancelling the permit. Reliance is placed on the decision in Dabal Singh v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR 1967 Allahabad 266. In the above decision it has been held as follows: "It was open to the Regional Transport Authority to use the fact of the convictions for refusing renewal even though it had not taken any steps for cancellation or suspension of the permit under S.60. The procedure to the followed for suspending or cancelling a licence is not required to be followed for refusing to renew a licence." As per S.2(20) of the Act, permit is a document authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage or stage carriage. Here, admittedly, the petitioner is no longer the registered owner of the vehicle for which the permit was issued. S.58(2) says that the application for renewal of a permit is to be disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. S.57 of the Act provides for the procedure in applying for and grant of permits. R.177A contains the guiding W.A.No.848 of 2016 19 principles in the matter of grant, variation, suspension or cancellation of stage carriage permits. One of the guiding principles to be followed in disqualifying an applicant is his financial instability. Under S.47 of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority in considering an application for permit must have due regard to the interests of the public generally also among other matters. The interests of the travelling public demand that an application for renewal by an operator who not only committed default of service but ceased to be the registered owner of the vehicle for which the permit was issued must be rejected. R.205 of the Rules insists that the application for renewal of a permit shall be in form 'PRA'. One of the details to be furnished in the application for renewal of permit in the above form is the registration mark of the vehicle covered by the permit. If these are the requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Kerala Motor Vehicles R.1961, an operator like the petitioner, who not only defaulted the service on the route but also ceased to own the vehicle for which the permit was issued, will not be entitled to a renewal of his permit. The fact that his permit was not actually cancelled before the application for renewal was submitted cannot be an excuse for insisting that he should get his permit renewed. It is immaterial whether on the date of the application for renewal the petitioner's permit was not, as a matter of fact, cancelled.” 18. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that against the decision of the RTA, Writ Petitioner has remedy of filing a revision, the learned Single Judge has dealt with the issue. Learned Single Judge himself has given reasons in paragraph 1 for entertaining the Writ Petition and not relegating the Writ Petitioner to alternative remedy. The exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge in the above context cannot be faulted and on the said ground alone we are not inclined to throw the Writ Petition. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.848 of 2016 20 **Ratheesh M.C. and another v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and another** (2015 [1] KHC 69) has further been relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the existing permit holders have no right to challenge grant of permit. It is useful to quote paragraph 23 of the Full Bench judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant: “23. We, thus, conclude that although the existing permit holders have no right and cannot be held to be aggrieved person when they sought to challenge a grant of permit on the sole ground, that grant of permit shall prejudicially affect their commercial interest. But, in case where the grant is in a statutory violation, the right to file revision under S.90 or file Writ Petition or Writ Appeal cannot be denied.” The Full Bench in the aforesaid case has laid down that the existing permit holder has no right to challenge grant of permit on the sole ground that such grant shall prejudicially affect their commercial interest, but in a case where the grant is against statutory violation, right to file revision under Section 90 was upheld. Full Bench in the said case was considering whether an existing holder was a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 90 of the Act and hence observations were made in the context of Section 90. In the present case challenge made by the Writ Petitioner was not on the sole ground that grant of permit shall prejudicially affect their commercial interest. The Full Bench judgment cannot be read to mean that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was not entertainable. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.04.2015 by which order the learned Single Judge directed for consideration of application for replacement of the vehicle and renewal. The Court while issuing the said direction did not adjudicate the issue on merit and only direction was to consider and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. The said direction did not oblige the Transport Authority to allow the application for renewal or - replacement of the vehicle. W.A.No.848 of 2016 21 19. In view of the foregoing discussions we are of the view that there are no such grounds in the Writ Appeal on which in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the judgment of the learned Single Judge can be interfered with. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their costs." 26. Thus, giving due consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that both the applications were taken up on the same day, simultaneously, and accordingly, Exhibit P8 dated 17.8.2015 has been issued. 27. The above said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.2175 of 2015 dated 26[th] October,2015 is squarely applicable to the impugned judgment in W.P.© No.38105/2015 dated 29.3.2016 and therefore, we find that the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the instant writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- **S.MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE** smv Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE**