JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 6516 of 2020 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 30.03.2021 in the aforesaid writ petition, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and declined the following reliefs sought for:

(1) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P7 and quash the same.

(2) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to forthwith grant the renewal of permit and replacement of vehicle as ordered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide Ext.P5 judgment.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The appellant is a stage carriage operator operating the service on the strength of Ext.P1 permit dated 14.06.2013, which was valid from 03.01.2009 to 02.01.2014 and subsequently renewed and extended upto 02.01.2019, granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram - first respondent. Later, she filed an application under Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act 1988’ for short) for replacing the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 regular permit with a suitable other vehicle of the same nature. However, the appellant's application for replacement was rejected by the first respondent vide Ext.P5 proceedings dated 10.07.2019 on the ground that the seating capacity of the proposed incoming vehicle offered for replacement is 31 in all; whereas, the seating capacity of the primary vehicle i.e. the vehicle originally issued with Ext.P1 permit, had a seating capacity of 43, and therefore the difference in the seating capacity exceeds 25% and accordingly reckoned the vehicle materially different, and rejected the application as provided under Rule 174(2) (b) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (‘Rules 1989’ for short). Being aggrieved, Ext.P5 decision passed by the first respondent was impugned before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in a statutory appeal filed under Section 89 of the Act, 1988.

3. According to the appellant, it was contended before the Tribunal that the primary vehicle having a seating capacity of 43 in all had been replaced subsequently with the existing vehicle covered by Ext.P1 permit, having a seating capacity of 33 in all. The case of the appellant is that the aforesaid contention was accepted by the Tribunal and by Ext.P6 judgment dated 31.10.2019, Ext.P5, decision of the first respondent was set aside and directed to reconsider the application for replacement as well as renewal on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. But, it was made clear that the first respondent shall grant renewal and replacement, if there was no other legal impediment. The contention of the appellant is that in spite of the directions so issued, the first respondent, as per Ext.P7 decision dated 07.01.20220, again rejected the application for replacement stating that there is material difference between the primary vehicle and the proposed incoming vehicle. In arriving at Ext.P7 decision, the first respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Rapheal Mathew vs. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority [unreported judgment of this Court dated 13.03.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 5728 of 2015 and connected cases] to substantiate its finding that the difference in seating capacity has to be reckoned with respect to the primary vehicle. It was, thus, challenging Ext.P7 decision of the first respondent, the writ petition in question was filed.

4. The learned single Judge, after considering the contentions advanced by the appellant as above, has dismissed the writ petition basically holding that on a reasonable interpretation of Section 83 of the Act, 1988 and the Rule 174 of the Rules,1989 and the note attached to it, it is evident that it is a clarification intended to ensure that by a gradual process of successive replacement, the original v