Petitioner, a grantee of a regular stage carriage permit, is challenging Ext. P5 where under the RTA declined and application for condonation of delay field by the petitioner for production of current records of the vehicle beyond four months for issue of permit. RTA granted a regular stage carriage permit to the petitioner vides Ext.P1 proceedings dated 28.8.2002. It is seen from the photocopy of Ext.P1 produced that the proceeding was signed for communication on 20.9.2002 and on that day the petitioner concedes to have received it. According to the petitioner, petitioner made an application vide Ext. P2 on 19.10.2002 for grant of maximum time for production of current records in terms of Rule 159(2) of the kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. According to the petitioner there was no response and the RTA has not revoked Ext. P1 permit granted to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner produced current records Ext. P3 on 25.2.2003 for issue of permit further to Ext.P1 grant of it. Petitioner also filed Ext. P4, which is in the nature of request for condonation of delay in furnishing current records of the vehicle for issue of permit. It is against this request of the petitioner, that the RTA vide its proceedings dated 27.3.2002 rejected the petitioner's request for time for production of current records of the vehicle or in other words rejected the current records produced by the petitioner beyond the maximum period permissible under Rule 1592 (2) of the kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. According to the petitioner even today RTA has not revoked the permit in terms of Rule 159(2) of the Rules and the petitioner's prayer in the Original petition is for a direction to the RTA to condone the delay in production of current records and issue the permit granted to him under Ext.P1, which according to him, is still in force.

2. Government pleader on the other hand contended that issue of permit itself was conditional and as is evident from the endorsement in Ext.P1 wherein the RTA has directed the petitioner to produce the current records within one month in terms of Rule 159(2) of the rules and as a consequence of the failure on the part of the petitioner, the permit will stand automatically cancelled is his contention. However, the RTA has not taken this extreme view, even in the impugned proceedings dated 27.3.2003. According to the Government pleader this is on account of the misconception of the RTA about the legal position and the permit no longer survives by operation of the statutory provision particularly rule 159(2) read with the condition imposed in Ext.P1 itself under section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. I have gone through the permit granted, namely, Ext.P1 wherein there is a general condition annexed to it in the following lines:

The grantee is directed to produce current records of the vehicle within one month from the date of sanction of this order, failing which the sanction is liable to be revoked without further notice.

It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Narayanan v. RTA, Trichur, 1980 KLT 249 (FB) that an applicant for regular permit need not produce registration particulars of the vehicle which he is free to produce after grant of the same and within the time provided under the Rule. Even though the decision is under the old Rule, the decision is applicable to present Rule, namely, Rule 159(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules and this decision has been followed by this Court in later decisions also. Therefore the application filed by the petitioner without being accompanied by registration particulars of the vehicle is consistent with Rule 159 and the RTA's endorsement in Ext. P1 that the permit is liable to be revoked without notice if current records are not produced within one month from the date of grant is also in terms of the first part of Rule 159(2). In other words, if an applicant does not produce current records of the vehicle or make an application for extension of t