Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 07.09.2015 in W.P(C) No. 24250 of 2015 by which judgment the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority renewing the stage carriage permit of the appellant as well as the order permitting replacement of the vehicle. Parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the Writ Appeal are: The 2nd respondent (appellant in this appeal) was granted a regular stage carriage permit on the route Manalaya Harijan Colony-Pattambi in respect of vehicle No. KL-53/3221 valid up to 15.04.2014. The 2nd respondent made an application for issuance of clearance certificate for the purpose of transferring his vehicle without surrendering the permit. The 2nd respondent filed W.P(C) No. 23071 of 2013 seeking a direction to permit him to effect transfer without surrendering the permit. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing issuance of necessary clearance certificate for sale of his vehicle and the permit be kept under suspension. The 2nd respondent was granted clearance certificate and he transferred the vehicle to one Mohammed Abdul Ravuf.

3. The 2nd respondent made an application for renewal of the permit on 20.03.2014 without replacing the vehicle which he had already transferred. On 24.02.2015 the 2nd respondent made available another vehicle, KL-53/H-1186 for renewal of the regular permit. The 2nd respondent filed W.P(C) No. 12384 of 2015 seeking a direction for consideration of the application for replacement of the vehicle. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 17.04.2015 by a learned Single Judge directing consideration of the application for renewal as well as the application for temporary permit. A direction was also issued for considering his application for replacement of the vehicle. In pursuance of the above order, the RTA by its decision dated 21.05.2015 allowed the renewal application as well as the application for replacement of the vehicle submitted by the 2nd respondent against which order, the Writ Petitioner, Usman, filed W.P(C) No. 24250 of 2015 praying for the following reliefs:

"(i). issue a writ of certiorari, calling for records leading to exhibit P3 and quash the same.

(ii). issue a writ of mandamus or order directing the respondent to grant temporary permit to the petitioner on route Manalaya Harijan Colony-Pattambi in respect of vehicle KL-8/AH-1000, in the vacancy of 2nd respondent, complying the exhibit P2 judgment urgently by circulation under Rule 130 of the KMV Rules.

(iii). pass such orders deemed fit in the circumstances of the case."

Exhibit P3 order which was challenged was the order dated 21.05.2015 of the RTA. It is also relevant to note that the Writ Petitioner had also filed another W.P(C) No. 25981 of 2015 challenging grant of regular permit to the 2nd respondent in which Writ Petition learned Single Judge passed an order dated 21.08.2015 directing the RTA to recall the permit issued to the 2nd respondent. By proceedings dated 24.08.2015 the RTA had recalled the regular permit granted to the 2nd respondent.

4. Learned Single Judge decided W.P(C) No. 24250 of 2015 by judgment dated 07.09.2015 by which judgment the Writ Petition was allowed and Ext. P3 decision of the RTA was set aside with regard to item No. 105. The second respondent in the Writ Petition has come up in appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 07.09.2015 held that application for renewal submitted by the 2nd respondent was without a vehicle which could not have been granted. It was further held that replacement of the vehicle was also not permissible since period of permit granted to the 2nd respondent has already run out by 15.04.2014. Learned Single Judge held that decision of the RTA was clearly against the statutory provisions.

6. Shri P. Ravindran, learned Seni