Ashok Bhushan, C.J.

Heard Adv. Sri. K. V. Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against judgment dated 4th April, 2013 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner.

3. Brief facts which are necessary for deciding the writ appeal are:

The 3rd respondent was granted permit by Ext.P1 subject to settlement of timings by proceedings dated 2nd June, 2008 of the Regional Transport Authority (for short 'R.T.A'.), Thrissur. The grantee was directed to produce current records of the vehicle within one month from the date of sanction of the order, failing which, sanction was liable to be revoked without further notice. The 3rd respondent submitted the details of the vehicle with request to condone delay on 13/10/2008. Ext.P1 was communicated to the 3rd respondent on 19/7/2008 and the application was submitted by the 3rd respondent on 13/10/2008. R.T.A. issued Ext.P2 order on 25/11/2008 referring to Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules directing for issue of the granted permit. Petitioner filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which revision was dismissed by order dated 4th March, 2009. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P4, petitioner filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

"i) to call for the records leading to the case and quash Exhibit P2 and P4 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order:

ii) to stay the operation and all proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P2 pending disposal of the Writ Petition;

iii) to issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Honourable Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case".

4. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment held that the 3rd respondent having produced the current records within three months of the date of communication of the grant and therefore, the R.T.A. did not commit any error in condoning the delay, directing the issue of permit, the writ petition has been dismissed. Challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the time allowed for submitting the details of the vehicle is one month as per Rule 159(2). He submits that in event details of vehicle are not produced within one month, there shall be automatic revocation of the grant and thereafter there is no jurisdiction to condone the delay. He submits that in any view of the matter, application for extension of time should be filed within one month. He submits that in the present case, the 3rd respondent did not submit the details of the vehicle within one month nor filed any application for extension of time. Hence, the R.T.A. committed error in accepting the details of the vehicle by Ext.P2 proceeding. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Seethal Vs. R.T.A. Trichur (2003(3) KLT 357).

6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the records.

7. From the facts brought on the record, it is clear that the grant of permit in favour of the 3rd respondent was communicated to the 3rd respondent on 19/7/2008, which date has been clearly mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that, on 13/10/2008, within a period of three months of receipt of the decision from the R.T.A., the grantee has produced the vehicle bearing No.KL-7AJ 4218 with a request to condone delay and allow him maximum time to produce the current records of the vehicle. R.T.A. on 25th November, 2008 considered his request and took a decision to issue permit. The submission which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that on non production of the details of the vehicle within one month from communication of t