Petitioner applied for the grant of regular permit in respect of his stage carriage bearing Reg.No. KL-10/M 3449 to operate on the route Karakkad-Cherpiassery. The above application was rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the vehicle offered was having a regular permit on the route Ongailur-Ottappalam, which was valid upto 3.1.2007. Petitioner challenged the above order before the STAT in MVAA No.278/2002. The STAT, by Exhibit P1 judgment, allowed the appeal and directed the first respondent to grant the regular permit to the petitioner to operate on the above route subject to settlement of timings. As the first respondent did not comply with the above order of the STAT so far, petitioner filed this original petition for directing the first respondent to comply with the above order of the STAT and to grant the regular permit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent is bound to comply with Exhibit P1 judgment of the STAT and to grant the regular permit as payed for. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ushakumari V Abdul Azeez (2000 (1) KLJ 141) to substantiate his argument that even without offering a vehicle or producing the current records of the vehicle the RTA is bound to consider the application for the grant of regular permit and to grant the permit and as per Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) he need produce the current records of the vehicle within thirty days from the date of grant of permit which can be extended upto four months as allowed by the competent authority. Hence, the first respondent is bound to comply with the direction of the STAT and to grant the regular permit.

4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the vehicle offered by the petitioner was having a regular permit valid upto 2007 and regular permit cannot be granted in respect of the same vehicle unless the petitioner surrenders the existing permit. It was further submitted that the decision relied on by the petitioner has no relevancy in the present case. The facts of the above decisi0on in 2000 (1) KLJ 141 cited supra do not have any similarity with the facts of the present case. That was a case where the applicant for the grant of regular permit was not the registered owner of the vehicle, but he applied for the grant of regular permit while the transfer of registration proceedings were pending before the competent authority in respect of the vehicle. In that case, in fact, no vehicle was offered at the time of applying and while considering the grant of the permit. It is settled law that the vehicle need not be offered at the time of grant and the current records of the vehicle need be produced within thirty days form the date of grant of permit or such extended period upto four months in view of Rule 159 of the Rules. But, this is a case where the petitioner had offered a vehicle and that vehicle was having a valid regular permit upto 2007 to be operated in another route and that permit was not surrended. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Johnson v. R.T.A., Trichur (1999 (2) KLT 434). The facts of the above case are identical with the facts of the present case. That was a case where the application filed for the grant of regular permit in respect of the vehicle was having regular permit to operate on another route. There may learned brother Justice Radhakrishnan held:

"An applicant is bound to give details of the vehicle in the application itself or at least at the time when the application comes up for consideration before the R.T.A. When application comes up for consideration before the R.T.A. R.T.A. could decide the necessity of granting a permit on a particular route to meet the requirement of the traveling public. It is after assessing the necessity the RTA grants the pe