A vehicle's replacement under permit requires assessment of material differences in capacity as per statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2025 The writ petition is filed by the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13-M-7525, operating on the route Ayyanthole–Marottichal via Thrissur. The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to the application submitted by the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P4, seeking replacement in Form PVA for substituting the existing vehicle with a later model vehicle. It is the contention of the petitioner that both the outgoing and incoming vehicles have the same seating capacity.

2. Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for replacement of vehicles and states that “the holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature.” A reading of the said provision indicates that the power to permit replacement is vested with the authority. However, Rule 133 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 provides for delegation of certain powers to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Under Rule 133(1)(i), the power under of the Act to allow replacement of one vehicle by another stands delegated to the Secretary, RTA.

3. Rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules deals with replacement of vehicles. Sub-rule (3) thereof provides that if the proposed new vehicle does not differ in any material respect from the old vehicle, the application for replacement may be allowed. If there is a material difference between the two vehicles, the application shall be treated as one for a fresh permit.

4. However, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the original vehicle, for which the permit was issued, had only 34 seats as per the records, whereas the vehicle sought to be substituted has 48 seats. It is submitted that there is more than a 25% material difference in the seating capacity of the vehicle covered by the original permit, and for that reason the delegated power under Rule 133 was not exercised by the Secretary, RTA.

5. It is further submitted that this issue has already been considered by this Court in Raphael Mathew v. Regional Transport Authority [2015 SCC Online KER 7408], wherein it was held that the Secretary, while exercising delegated powers, can consider and pass orders on an application under Section 83 only when there is no material difference between the vehicles, and that in cases involving material difference, the matter has to be placed before the Regional Transport Authority.

In the present case, it appears that there is no material difference between the outgoing and incoming vehicles. The only change is that an older model vehicle is sought to be replaced with a later model vehicle. It is a fact that the original vehicle, having 34 seats, which was issued with a permit was earlier replaced with the permission of the RTA. Since that permission is already granted by the RTA, further replacement with later model vehicle without any material difference with the outgoing vehicle need not be again referred to RTA. In such background, I do not find any reason to refer the matter to the Regional Transport Authority. Under these circumstances, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application in the light of the aforesaid provisions and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.