K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point that arises for decision in these Writ Petitions is whether it is mandatory to furnish the details of the vehicle, at the time of considering the application for a regular permit.

2. W.P.(C).No.29731/2004: The petitioner submitted an application for grant of a regular permit on the route, Parappanangadi -- Malappuram. He did not have a ready vehicle. So, in the application form, it was stated that the particulars of a suitable stage carriage will be furnished later. For the purpose of operating the service on the above route, the petitioner purchased a vehicle on 23.3.2004. Temporary registration was obtained for it on the very same day. While the body construction of the vehicle was going on, the 1st respondent R.T.A., Malappuram considered his application on 25.3.2004. Though, there was no objection to the grant of the permit from any quarters, the R.T.A. by Ext.P3 decision, rejected it. The relevant portion of the decision reads as follows:

“Heard. The current records of the offered vehicle as required, in view of judgment dated 13.6.03 of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C).No.16171/03, are not produced. Moreover, the entire route is well served by stage carriages with little time gap. Hence rejected”.

3. The order of this Court, mentioned in the above decision of the R.T.A. is an interim order, which says that the Regional Transport Authority can insist that it will consider only the applications for regular permit filed by the applications with ready vehicle having current records, pending finalization of route formulation. The petitioner appealed against Ext.P3 and the S.T.A.T., by Ext.P6 judgment dated 23.7.2004, affirmed the said decision. The S.T.A.T. found that one of the grounds, that is, the route is well served, is not a valid ground for rejecting the application for permit, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443. But, the second ground that the current records of the vehicle were not produced at the time of consideration of the application, has been upheld by the S.T.A.T. On that ground, the appeal was dismissed. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

“6. The other ground is that the documents of the offered vehicle were not produced. As per R.159(2) the current records need be produced only within 3 month of the grant or within such extended period not exceeding 3 months in the aggregate. As per that rule, at the time of application the records of the vehicle need not be there. In Natarajan v. State, 1999 (1) KLT SN 11 P.10.= AIR 1999 Ker. 207, the position was considered. There it has been held that at the time of filing the application the vehicle need not be there. But, at the time of consideration, ready vehicle must be there. The current records may be produced only within 1 month thereafter. Hence, if the current records were not produced at .the time of consideration of the application on account of the fact that ready vehicle was not there, permit is not liable to be granted. But, if the vehicle was there and failure was to produce current records alone, the position would be different. Hence, I have to consider whether the records were not produced as no ready vehicle was there. In the appeal memorandum, it is specifically stated that the vehicle offered was only under body construction. Chassis was delivered only on 23.3.2004 and the chassis was registered only on 22.4.2004. The application was considered on 25.3.2004. Hence, on the day of application, there was only chassis and there was no ready vehicle. The appellant was not entitled to get a grant permit at the time of application, as there was no ready vehicle. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed”.

4. The point to be decided, is whether the failure to offer a ready vehicle at the time of consideration of the application for permit, is a ground to reject the same. S.70 of the Motor Vehicles Act dea