Shaffique, J.

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 order dated 27/11/2013 in M.V.A.A.No.263/2013 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The averments in the writ petition disclose that the permit holder, who was operating in the route Aluva-Fort kochi since 1985 on a regular permit, discontinued operations during November 2011 and surrendered the permit. Since the route became vacant, petitioner submitted an application for temporary permit for stage carriage KL- 43/3544. The 3rd respondent/Secretary, RTA rejected his application. However, as per the directions issued by the Tribunal in an appeal, he was granted temporary permit from 21/02/2012 to 20/06/2012. He was allowed to continue service by virtue of temporary permit without any intervention. Ext.P4 is the report of the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Mattancherry which indicates that there exists an urgent temporary and permanent need for more travel facilities for the travelling public in the said route to satisfy the increased travel demand. Petitioner subsequently applied for regular permit which was rejected as per proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority dated 14/05/2013 stating that the route portion from Aluva to Thoppumpady having a length of 30 Kms objectionably overlaps Alappuzha - Ernakulam and Thiruvananthapuram - Thrissur notified scheme. Ext.P5 is the said order which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Ext.P6 appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal, confirmed the view taken by the 2nd respondent on a finding that the overlapping exceeds Clause 5(c) of the notification.

3. The petitioner contends that even if there was a scheme as notified on 14/07/2009, it has no application to city permits. It is contended that city permits are granted as prescribed in Section 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act'). Ext.P1 notification dated 22/03/2010 has been issued in terms of the said statutory provision stating that the number of stage carriages operated by State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as 'STU') shall be 250 and by other operators shall be 800. The total number of stage carriages would come to 1050. Therefore, it is contended that merely for the reason that a notification had been issued under Section 100(3) of the 1988 Act, the same will not apply to city routes which is covered by the notification Ext.P1. Hence the petitioner has sought for a direction to grant him regular permit in the said route after quashing Exts.P5 and P8.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. Section 71 of the 1988 Act reads as under:-

71. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit-

(1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, while considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the objects of this Act.

(2) A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from any time-table furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which vehicles may be driven are likely to be contravened:

(3)(a) The State Government shall, if so directed by the Central Government having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type, as may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs.

(b) Where the number of stage carriages are fixed under clause (a), the Government of the State shall reserve in the State certain percentage of stage carriage permits for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the same rat