Petitioner’s husband K.A. Faroq was granted a permit to ply a stage carriage. With variations, granted and effected, that renewed up to 17-4-2007, as evidence by Ext.P1. With effect from 27-10-1989 that permit was transferred to the petitioner and issued for the vehicle KLS-399.

2 Petitioner challenges the cancellation of the said permit as per Ext.P4 decision of the RTA and Ext.P6 order of the STAT confirming the said decision. She also seeks a declaration that non-replacement of Vehicle is no ground for cancellation of permit under Section 87(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. Following the renewal of the permit, to be valid till 17-4-2007, the petitioner and her grandson submitted a joint application for transfer of permit to his name. That application was granted on 22-12-2003. Petitioner’s grandson obtained a new stage carriage to replace vehicle KLS-399 hoping transfer of permit in his name. The statutory authority required the petitioner’s grandson to produce Form No.30 duly attested by the financier for effecting the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. The financier refused to do so. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was notified of the proposal to cancel the permit since her vehicle had completed 15 years of age by 31-3-2004 and the vehicle was not replaced in terms of the decision of the STAR following direction of this Court. The petitioner responded by contending that the financier has not issued the clearance certificate. In the meanwhile, another stage carriage with Registration No.KL-13/A-6316 was obtained by the petitioner from her grandson and provided before the statutory authorities for replacement. The RTO, however, issued the impugned Ext.P4 decision revoking the transfer and canceling the permit on ground that the petitioner had failed to apply for replacement of the out-dated vehicle by a later model vehicle on or before 31-3-2004. It is that order that has been confirmed by the STAT as per the impugned Ext.P6 judgment.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the permit is valid till 17-4-2007 and in terms of Section 86 of the Act, the ground that the outdated vehicle has not been replaced on or before 31-3-2004 is not one available for cancellation of permit.

5. Section 84 provides certain conditions. Breach of any other condition specified in Section 84 or any of the conditions contained in the permit can be a ground for canceling the permit or for suspending it under Sub-section 1 of Section 86, which reads as follows:

“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 –

(a) on the breach of any condition specified in section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, or

(b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorized by the permit, or

(c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit, or

(d) if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation, or

(e) if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted, or

(f) if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country;

Provided that no permit shall be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation.”

6. Going by the law as it stands, including the position propounded by this Court in Alavikutty’s case 2005 (1) KLJ 205, a ready vehicle is not required at the time of consideration of the question for grant of permit and the current records need be produced only for the purpose of issuance of permit following the grant. So much so, the grant in favour of a person as an operator is not dependent upon the availability of a vehicle to be operated following the grant. The availability of a ve