JUDGMENT

Under challenge in this petition is Ext.P9 order dated 17.3.2020 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.V.A.R.P.No. 150 of 2019, insofar as it directs the 1st respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to accept the records of the stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-09-AR-1661 for issuing permit afresh and to pass orders. The contention of the petitioner essentially is that since the records of the vehicle were produced well within time, there was no need for the 1st respondent to consider the request and the STAT ought to have directed the Secretary of the RTA to issue the permit after accepting the records. Seeking corrections, the petitioner had filed M.P.No.405 of 2020 which stands rejected by Ext.P12 order. The said order is also under challenge in this petition.

2. The records reveal that the petitioner had applied for a regular permit on the inter district route Palakkad Stadium bus stand - Kuttipalam on 17.11.2016 and offered a stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-02-P-3819. The said application was considered in the meeting held on 28.12.2017 and the same was rejected on the ground that the vehicle offered was not a suitable one. The said order was challenged before the STAT and by judgment dated 28.6.2018 in M.V.A.A.No.161 of 2018, the appeal was allowed and the RTA was directed to reconsider the application and pass fresh order. The application was reconsidered in the meeting held on 15.11.2018 and regular permit was granted subject to production of a suitable stage carriage. The revision petitioner produced a vehicle bearing No.KL-07-AE-2727 well within time. However, his request for issuance of permit was not granted on the ground that the vehicle produced was a later model vehicle. The petitioner then produced a 2012 model vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-09-AR-1661 and the 1st respondent in the meeting held on 30.7.2019 rejected the request made by the petitioner for grant of permit. The said order was challenged before the STAT. The STAT taking note of the pronouncement of this Court in Shihabudin v. STA [ W.P.(C) No.9 of 2020] came to the conclusion that the criteria fixed by the STA will not have any legal validity from 29.1.2019 on which day, Rule 260A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, stood amended and a statutory age limit was fixed for the vehicles. Holding so, the 1st respondent was directed to consider the request of the petitioner to accept the records of the stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-09-AR-1661 for issuing permit afresh.

3. Sri. O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that since the original records of the vehicle were produced in time and as the substitution of vehicle is a permissible act after grant and before issuance of permit, the Tribunal ought to have issued directions to the 2nd respondent instead of the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, due to the restrictions imposed due to the pandemic, the likelihood of the timing conference being held in the near future is remote.

4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that on

22.6.2020, the petitioner had produced the records of another stage carriage bearing No.KL-09-P-4206 instead of KL-09-AR-1661 and requested for issuance of permit. According to the learned government pleader, under Section 72 of the Act, it is for the RTA to consider the application subject of course to imposition of appropriate conditions. It is contended that the current records of the stage carriage No KL-09-AR-1661 was produced only after 4 months and in clear violation of the provisions of the Rules.

5. Sri Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents sought to sustain the orders passed by the STAT.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The records reveal that the RTA had considered the application filed by the petitioner on 17.11.2016 for fresh stage carriage permit on the intra district route Palakkad Stadium Bus Stand - Kuttippalam an