Seldom do I entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner has an effective statutory remedy unless there are compelling reasons. I am however constrained to interfere with the decision of the Regional Transport Authority since all the statutory provisions have been thrown to the wind. This is particularly so since the parties are not at variance on facts and only the interpretation of the statutory provisions applicable remains to be considered.

2. The second respondent was operating a stage carriage service with his vehicle KL-53/3221 on the route Manalaya Harijan Colony - Pattambi on the strength of a regular permit. The second respondent applied for clearance certificate obviously to transfer the vehicle to another keeping the regular permit under suspended animation. This was followed by W.P.(C) No.23071/2013 on the file of this Court wherein a clearance certificate was directed to be issued by Ext.P1 judgment dated 12.9.2013. The validity of the regular permit was to expire on 15.4.2014 and hence the second respondent had applied for its renewal on 20.3.2014 well in advance. The second respondent did not pursue the application for renewal of the regular permit for quite a long time since he had no vehicle at his disposal for operation of the service. It was only on 21.2.2015 did the second respondent make available another vehicle KL- 53 H/1186 for the purpose of the renewal of the regular permit. The second respondent simultaneously put in an application for replacing the vehicle KL- 53/3221 with a later model vehicle KL-53 H/1186 to operate service on the route. The Regional Transport Authority by one stroke in its decision on 21.05.2015 (as item No. 105 in Ext.P3 proceedings) allowed both the renewal and replacement. This is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition contending that there has been a flagrant violation of the provisions of law. The petitioner claims to be a stage carriage vehicle operator and has sought a temporary permit to operate service on the route earlier served by the second respondent.

3. I heard Mr.Stalin.P.Davis, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Smt.K.A.Sanjeetha, the Government Pleader and Mr.Sajeev Kumar.K.Gopal, Advocate on behalf of the second respondent.

4. Rule 172 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules,1989 ('the Rules' for short) deal with the renewal of permit and Rule 172(2) thereof which is relevant is extracted hereunder:

“Application for renewal of permit shall be in form “PRA” and shall be accompanied by the permit where the motor vehicle is subject to a hire purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement, the certificate or communication or as the case may be, the declaration referred to in sub section (8) of Section 51 of the Act.” (emphasis supplied)

Thus every application for renewal of permit shall be in form 'PRA' which is mandatory and entry No.2 in the form is the 'registration mark of the vehicle covered by the permit'. No application for renewal of permit would lie without the registration mark of the vehicle to be covered by the permit and the same is evident by a plain reading of the Rules. The second respondent did not have at his disposal a vehicle leave alone a registration mark on 20.03.2014 on which date he applied for renewal of the permit. The vehicle KL-53 H/1186 was procured much later and made available by the second respondent only on 21.02.2015 on which date he applied for replacement of the vehicle. There cannot be a renewal of the permit in vaccum without the vehicle and the Regional Transport Authority erred in entertaining the application for renewal of the permit. I take cue from the decision in Bhouman Vs. State of Kerala and others [1975 KLT 357] ofcourse rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961. The first respondent can however grant time to the holder of the renewed permit to produce the registration certificate and endorse the renewal in the