1. Since similar issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the exhibits referred to hereinbelow shall be as obtaining in W.P.(C) No. 33880 of 2025.

2. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. She is the holder of Ext.P1 regular permit to conduct stage carriage service on the route Mannarkad–Palakkad with the stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-09-M-5779. The 3rd respondent (in W.P.(C) No.33880 of 2025) is an existing operator on the route Palakkad–Kozhikode via Mannarkad. The petitioner states that Ext.P1 is a ‘saved permit’. The permit originally issued in the year 2003 was renewed on 17.01.2012 for a period of five years up to 16.01.2017. Before the expiry of the permit, the petitioner submitted an application dated 23.12.2016 seeking its renewal for the period from 17.01.2017 to 16.01.2022. During the pendency of the application for renewal of the permit, the said vehicle completed 15 years from the date of its original registration, i.e., 11.07.2003 and became unfit to operate as Ordinary Limited Stop Service. The petitioner states that the application for renewal of the permit was taken up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) only on 18.03.2023, without notice to her, more than six years after the expiry of the validity of Ext.P1 permit. However, the RTA, by Ext.P4 decision dated 18.03.2023, adjourned the application on the ground that the petitioner failed to use the stage carriage for which permit was issued. Ext.P4 decision reads as follows:

                  “Item No.54

                  The applicant is absent. On perusal of records, it is understood the vehicle KL-09-M-5779 has been under form-G for a long period of time and the regular permit was expired on 18.01.2017 and a notice was issued to the permit holder intimating the consideration of application for renewal of permit by this authority. Hence, the secretary shall serve: (1) a show-cause notice under Rule 152 of KMV Rules 1989 to the permit holder calling for explanation why appropriate action as per law should not be taken against her for failure to use this stage carriage for the purpose for which the permit was issued. (2) notice to the permit holder to appear before this authority in the ensuing meeting while the application is again considered.”

3. According to the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P4, no show cause notice was issued to her under Rule 152 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (‘Rules’ for short). Further, the application for renewal was not included for consideration in the meeting of the RTA held on 27.06.2023 or in the subsequent meetings held on 14.11.2023 and 19.07.2024. The petitioner purchased a later model vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-08-AS-7414 on 22.11.2024 and submitted Ext.P9 application for replacement on 28.01.2025. Along with Ext.P9, the petitioner also submitted Ext.P10 no objection certificate from the financier of the age over vehicle (No. KL-09-M-5779).

4. The petitioner applied for temporary permit for the newly purchased vehicle. However, the application was rejected by the Secretary, RTA and the petitioner filed MVAA No. 39 of 2025 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) against the said order and the STAT, by Ext.P11 interim order, directed the Secretary, RTA to issue temporary permit to operate on the route Mannarkad - Palakkad in respect of stage carriage No. KL-08-AS-7414, in the place of KL-09-M-5779 for a period of 20 days from 06.02.2025. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P12 temporary permit was issued to the petitioner.

5. While so, on 11.03.2025, after a gap of nearly two years from the date of Ext.P4 decision, the RTA took up the application for renewal of permit along with Ext.P9 application for replacement. The petitioner states that, until then, no show cause notice had been issued to her by the Secretary, RTA under Rule 152 of the Rules, as directed in Ext.P4. Referring to Ext.P13 agenda for the meeting of the RTA on 11.03.2025, the petitioner states that the matters slated for consideration were only the applications for renewal and replacement, and that no action under Rule 152 of the Rules was proposed or contemplated by the RTA in the said meeting. The RTA considered the applications and reserved orders.

6. While so, by Ext.P14 judgment dated 14.03.2025 in MVAA No. 39 of 2025, the STAT directed the Secretary, RTA, to issue temporary permit to the petitioner, if there is no other impediment.

7. By Ext.P16 decision, the RTA, cancelled the permit of the petitioner under Rule 152 of the Rules and rejected the applications for renewal and replacement as not maintainable and disposed of the same as infructuous. The decision of the RTA reads thus:

                  “Decision

                  Heard, this is an application dated 23.12.2016 for renewal of permit [Permit No.9/633/2003] in respect of stage carriage KL 09 M 5779 authorised to operate on the intra-district route Mannarkkad-Palakkad on the strength of regular permit valid up to 16.01.2017 and applications dated 29.01.2025 for further renewal of permit and application for replacement of stage carriage KL 09 M 5779 by KL 08 AS 7414. On perusal of records, tax in respect of this vehicle is paid only up to 30.06.2013. The vehicle was not operational on the permit for the last 12 years, without obtaining prior sanction from this authority. Permit holder not seen timely responded to the notice issued on 08.02.2023 by Secretary, RTA, Palakkad under Rule 152 of KMV Rules, 1989. The application dated 23.12.2016 for renewal of permit was placed before the RTA in the meeting held on 18.03.2023 vide item No.54 after issuing due notice the permit holder. Since permit holder was absent before this authority in the above meeting, the decision on renewal application was adjourned. On 14.10.2024, the permit holder filed a request to re-consider her application for renewal of permit. On 28.01.2025 the permit holder submitted applications for further renewal of permit and replacement of stage carriage by another stage carriage KL 08 AS 7414, along with NOC from the financier of stage carriage in respect KL 09 M 5779. The explanations/reasons submitted by the permit holder both before the Secretary, RTA, Palakkad and before this authority for not conducting service for the long 12 years are perused. This authority is not satisfied that the permit holder was prevented by sufficient cause from running the service as required under Rule 152 of KMV Rules, 1989.

                  Hence, permit is cancelled under Rule 152 of KMV Rules, 1989. In view of the above decision, applications field for renewal of permit and replacement of vehicle are not maintainable and hence disposed as in-fructuous.”

                  According to the RTA, the explanation submitted by the petitioner for not conducting the service for the 12 long years is not satisfactory and therefore, the permit is liable to be cancelled under Rule 152 of the Rules.

8. The Secretary, RTA, passed Ext.P17 order dated 25.04.2025 rejecting the petitioner's application for temporary permit pursuant to the direction in Ext.P14 judgment of the STAT, taking note of the fact that the permit had been cancelled and that the applications for renewal and replacement had been disposed of as not maintainable and infructuous vide Ext.P16 order of the RTA.

9. The petitioner preferred an appeal against Ext.P16 decision of the RTA before the STAT. The STAT, by Ext.P18 judgment set aside Ext.P16. The relevant portion of Ext.P18 reads as follows:

                  “3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

                  4. The impugned order shows that the tax in respect of the vehicle is paid up to 30/06/2013 and the vehicle was not operational on the permit for the last 12 years, without obtaining prior Sancton. On 28/01/2025, the permit holder submitted application for further renewal of permit and replacement of stage carriage by another stage carriage KL 08 AS 7414, along with NOC from the financier of stage carriage in respect of KL 09 M 5779. The authority is not satisfied with the explanation that prevented the permit holder from running the service. The learned counsel of the appellant argued that the permit is an already expired one and the same cannot be cancelled and hence the order of the RTA that the permit is cancelled under Rule 152 of KMV Rules, 1989 is purely illegal and unsustainable in law.

                  5. The Rule 152 of the KMV Rules, 1989, outlines the consequences when a stage carriage operator fails to keep their vehicle in a fit condition for operating routes, potentially leading to violations of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and consequent permit cancellation. The exception in Rule 152 is if the permit holder was prevented by sufficient cause from running the service, the failure to use the transport vehicle can be condoned. The appellant has produced certain documents. The Ext.P2 shows the details of the place of garage of S/C KL 09 M 5779. The Ext.P3 is the histopathology report of the mother of the appellant. The Exts. P4 and P5 show that the appellant's mother has undergone treatment in Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. The Ext.P6 is dated 18/03/2023 and in the said proceeding the appellant is absent. The Ext.P7 application made by the appellant to consider her application. The Ext.P9 is the NOC from the financier in respect of the vehicle KL 09 M S779. The Ext.P13 is the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application for temporary permit.

                  xxxx

                  Hence I am not discussing the arguments and citations produced by the 3rd respondent in detail. Here the only one point to be considered is whether the RTA can grant permit accepting the exception provided in Rule 152 of the KMV Rules. The appellant's case is that the vehicle was garaged and not operated and prior sanction is not availed because of the emergent situation of her mother. I am of the opinion that better conveyance facility is a sign of progressive nation and the RTA can consider the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law and is directed to dispose of the application within 4 weeks.

                  In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The second respondent is directed to re-consider the application on merits and pass orders in accordance with law within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment after hearing all the parties concerned.”

                  The petitioner states that by Ext.P18 judgment, the STAT set aside Ext.P16 decision of the RTA for all intents and purposes and directed the RTA to reconsider the applications on merits and pass orders in accordance with law.

10. Pursuant to the direction in Ext.P18 judgment of the STAT, the RTA, by Ext.P19, considered the matter and cancelled the permit under Rule 152 of the Rules and consequently, rejected the applications for renewal of permit and replacement, as not maintainable. The relevant portion of Ext. P19 order reads as follows:

                  “3. The matter is reconsidered as per the direction of the hon'ble Tribunal. From the records, it is revealed that the permit of the above vehicle was valid for the period from 17.01.2012 to 16.01.2017. After endorsing the renewal of permit the vehicle was not operated till the expiry of validity on l6.01.2017. Rule 152 of KMV Rules 1989 reads ‘it shall be a condition of the permit of every transport vehicle (other than private service vehicle permit) that the vehicle shall be so maintained as to be available for the service for the which the permit was granted for the entire period of currency of the permit and that the permit is liable to be suspended or cancelled after due notice to the permit holder, if the vehicle has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted....’ As directed by the honble Tribunal, examined whether the permit holder is eligible for allowing exception provided in Rule 152 of KMV Rules, 1989. On perusal of records and connected exhibits submitted by the appellant before the hon'ble Tribunal, there were no records evidencing the emergent medical situation of permit holder's mother on or before the expiry of the permit (ie., on 16.01.2017). Also while hearing the matter, the applicant could not submit any satisfying sufficient cause for not making the service operational for the entire currency of the permit. For the above reasons, this authority is decided to cancel the permit under Rule 152 of KMV Rules, 1989.

                  In view of the above decision, applications filed for further renewal of permit and replacement of vehicle are found not maintainable and hence rejected.”

11. The petitioner states that Ext.P1 permit was cancelled for the reason that the petitioner could not submit any sufficient cause for not making the service operational for the entire currency of the permit. The petitioner contends that though the STAT remanded the matter to the RTA to reconsider the applications for renewal of permit and replacement, on merits, the RTA proceeded on the impression that the remand was only to consider whether Ext.P1 permit was liable to be cancelled under Rule 152 of the Rules. Challenging Ext.P19 order of the RTA cancelling Ext.P1 regular permit and rejecting her applications for renewal of the permit and replacement of the vehicle, the petitioner has preferred W.P.(C) No.33880 of 2025. The petitioner also challenges Ext.P17 order of the Secretary, RTA, rejecting her application for temporary permit (relief No. 4).

12. When W.P.(C) No.33880 of 2025 came up for admission on 15.09.2025, this Court passed an interim order directing the Secretary, RTA to reconsider the application of the petitioner for temporary permit. The Secretary, RTA, by order dated 03.10.2025 rejected the application for temporary permit, reiterating the same reason stated in Ext.P17 order. Challenging the order of the Secretary, RTA, rejecting the application for temporary permit, the petitioner has preferred W.P. (C) No.37878 of 2025. The order of the Secretary, RTA dated 03.10.2025 has been produced as Ext.P6 in the said writ petition. The RTA and the Secretary, RTA are the respondents in the said writ petition.

13. In W.P.(C) No.33880 of 2025, this Court passed a further order on 16.10.2025 directing the Secretary, RTA to issue a temporary permit to the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. The said order was challenged in writ appeal by the 3rd respondent, contending, inter alia, that the interim direction to issue temporary permit amounts to granting relief No. 4 sought in the writ petition itself on a final basis. The Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 13.02.2026 in W.A. No. 2628 of 2025, observed that relief No. 4 sought in the writ petition and the interim relief sought by the petitioner are verbatim and that, apparently, the said order was passed in W.P.(C) No. 33880 of 2025 instead of W.P.(C) No. 37878 of 2025, and that the Court ought not to have issued directions to grant a permit, which fall within the domain of the competent authorities. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed remanding the matter for fresh consideration by this Court in accordance with law.

14. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 33880 of 2025 contending inter alia that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy against Ext.P19 by way of appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further contended that the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of permit on 23.12.2016 was defective since the same was not accompanied by the NOC from the financier concerned, which is a statutory requirement. It is also contended that there was huge tax arrears with respect to the subject vehicle to the tune of Rs.11,27,054/- as on the date of application for renewal. The application for renewal was not accompanied by clearance certificate from tax authorities. The 3rd respondent states that a defective application is no application in the eyes of law and the petitioner deliberately chose not to prosecute the renewal application for years as it was defective. Relying on Ext.R3(e) agreement for sale, the 3rd respondent contends that the petitioner had sold the vehicle KL-09-M-5779 to one Abdul Jaleel on 28.03.2015 and as on the date of the application for renewal of permit, she was not in possession of the vehicle. Further, the petitioner secured Ext.P10 NOC from her financier only in January, 2025, which shows that she did not have an NOC when she applied for renewal of permit on 23.12.2016. It is further contended that the subsequent application of the petitioner for renewal submitted on 28.01.2025 is not maintainable since the permit had already expired on 16.01.2017. A non existing permit cannot be renewed. Since the permit expired on 16.01.2017 and the delay in submitting the renewal application has not been condoned, the renewal application cannot be treated as pending. Consequently, Ext. P9 application for replacement cannot be treated as valid. It is also contended that since no valid application for renewal or replacement is pending, the petitioner is not entitled to be issued with temporary permit. The 3rd respondent states that Ext. P1 permit expired in 2017 and cannot be revived through a renewal application submitted eight years after its expiry. According to the 3rd respondent, Ext.P19 order has been passed by the RTA strictly in terms of the directions issued by the STAT in Ext.P18 judgment. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for not running the service during the currency of the permit. The finding of the RTA pursuant to Ext. P18 judgment of the STAT, being a finding of fact, does not call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's vehicle has not been in operation since 2013, for more than 12 years, both during the currency of the permit and thereafter. It is further stated that the subject vehicle was reduced into scrap almost a decade back and the attempt of the petitioner is to resurrect a dead permit, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

15. Heard Sri. P. Deepak, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Rilgin V. George, the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, Sri.N. Reghuraj, the learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 33880 of 2025 assisted by Smt.Sayujya Radhakrishnan and Smt. Surya Binoy, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

16. Sri.Deepak would contend that the application of the petitioner for renewal was kept pending for more than six years, after the expiry of its validity. When the application was slated for consideration on 18.03.2023, the same was adjourned with direction to the Secretary, RTA to issue show cause notice to the petitioner under Rule 152 of the Rules calling for her explanation as to why action should not be taken against her for failure to use the stage carriage for the purpose for which the permit was issued. Though there was direction in Ext.P4 to place the application in the ensuing meeting, the application was not boarded for nearly two years. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 152 of the Rules as directed in Ext.P4 decision. In the meeting convened on 18.03.2025 what was boarded for consideration were only the applications for renewal of permit and replacement and that no action under Rule 152 of the Rules was proposed. Though Ext.P16 refers to a notice dated 08.02.2023 issued by the Secretary, RTA under Rule 152 of the Rules, the direction of the RTA to the Secretary to issue notice under Rule 152 came only on 18.03.2023, in Ext.P4 decision. Therefore, the decision of the RTA in Ext.P19 to cancel the permit under Rule 152 cannot be sustained, being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Sri.Deepak contends that cancellation of permit for breach of the provisions contained in Rule 152 can be done only during the currency of the permit. It is also contended that, in every case of breach, it is not necessary that the permit should be cancelled or suspended, since the power to cancel or suspend a permit is discretionary under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, under Section 86(5), the permit holder is afforded an opportunity to compound the breach by payment of the prescribed amount in lieu of cancellation or suspension of the permit. Sri.Deepak contends that if the permit was proposed to be cancelled during its currency, the petitioner could have availed of the aforesaid reliefs. Sri. Deepak would further contend that the direction in Ext.P18 judgment was for consideration of the applications for renewal of permit and replacement afresh. However, the RTA only considered the question of cancellation of permit under Rule 152.

17. Sri.Reghuraj would contend that under Rule 152 of the Rules, a permit is liable to be cancelled if the vehicle has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted, unless it is shown that the permit holder was prevented by sufficient cause from operating the service. The petitioner has no case that she had obtained the previous permission of the RTA for not running the vehicle. Sri.Reghuraj refers to Ext.P18 judgment of the STAT and submits that the STAT directed the RTA to consider whether the permit could be granted by invoking the exception provided under Rule 152 of the Rules and that the matter was remanded only for the said limited purpose. The RTA, by Ext.P19 order, found that no sufficient cause has been made out by the petitioner for not running the service during the entire currency of the permit. It is also contended that the petitioner had sold the vehicle as seen from Ext.R3(e) and she was not in possession of the vehicle at the time of filing the application for renewal. She had no NOC from the financier and no tax was paid. Accordingly, she did not prosecute the application for renewal for more than six years as her application was defective. It is also contended that the application for renewal submitted on 28.01.2025 is not maintainable as the permit already expired long back cannot be resurrected. Sri.Reghuraj contends that, since the application for replacement presupposes the existence of a permit, the application for replacement also cannot be considered.

18. Smt.Surya would contend that, under Rule 172 of the Rules, an application for renewal of a permit can be considered only if it is accompanied by the prescribed mandatory documents, and since the petitioner's application was not so accompanied, the renewal sought was not in accordance with Rule 172. Smt.Surya relied on the decision of this Court in Bhouman v. State of Kerala and others [1975 KLT 357: ILR 1975 (1) Ker. 547] wherein it was held that an operator who has not only defaulted in operating the service on the route but has also ceased to own the vehicle for which the permit was issued is not entitled to renewal of the permit. Smt.Surya contended that the mere fact that the permit had not been cancelled during the currency of the permit cannot be a ground to insist on its renewal.

19. According to the petitioner, though the STAT by Ext. P18 judgment remanded the matter to the RTA to reconsider the applications for renewal of permit and replacement on merits, the RTA proceeded on the impression that the remand was only to consider whether Ext.P1 permit was liable to be cancelled under Rule 152 of the Rules. The 3rd respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the STAT directed the RTA to consider whether the permit could be granted by invoking the exception provided under Rule 152 of the Rules and that the matter was remanded only for the said limited purpose.

20. In paragraph 5 of Ext.P18 judgment, extracted above, the STAT referred to Rule 152 of the Rules and examined the consequences of a stage carriage operator failing to keep the vehicle in a fit condition for operation, which may result in cancellation of the permit. The STAT then referred to the exception contained in Rule 152, which provides that if the permit holder was prevented by sufficient cause from running the service, the failure to use the transport vehicle can be condoned. In that context, the STAT referred to the documents produced by the petitioner, including the histopathology report of her mother and the records evidencing her treatment at the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner's case was that the vehicle remained garaged and was not operated, and that prior sanction could not be obtained owing to the emergent medical condition of her mother. It was in the above factual backdrop that the STAT observed:"Here the only one point to be considered is whether the RTA can grant permit accepting the exception provided in Rule 152 of the KMV Rules." The STAT thereafter expressed the opinion that better conveyance facility is a sign of progressive nation and the RTA can consider the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law. Accordingly, the STAT set aside Ext. P16 order and directed the RTA to reconsider the application on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. Thus, on a plain reading of Ext. P18 judgment, it is clear that the remand was for the limited purpose to consider whether the permit could be granted by invoking the exception provided under Rule 152 of the Rules, and not as contended by the petitioner.

21. The petitioner has not challenged Ext. P18 judgment of the STAT and the same has become final.

22. Rule 152 of the Rules reads as follows:

                  “Rule-152. Failure to use transport vehicle.-It shall be a condition of the permit of every transport vehicle (other than a private service vehicle permit) that the vehicle shall be so maintained as to be available for the service for which the permit was granted, for the entire period of currency of the permit and that the permit is liable to be suspended or cancelled, after due notice to the permit holder, if the vehicle has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted, for any day in the case of a stage carriage unless a reserve bus duly authorised in this behalf has conducted substitute service in the place of the route-bus which defaulted service, and for a continuous period of fifteen days or more in the case of other transport vehicles, during the period for which the permit authorises the use of the vehicle on the road, unless the State or Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that the permit holder was prevented by sufficient cause from running the service or that the permit holder had obtained the previous permission of the State or Regional Transport Authority to suspend the service for such period during which the vehicle was not operated.”

                  Rule 152 of the Rules provides that it shall be a condition of the permit of every transport vehicle that the vehicle shall be so maintained as to be available for the service for which the permit was granted, for the entire period of currency of the permit. The Rule further provides that where a stage carriage has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted, even for a single day, and no duly authorised reserve bus has operated in substitution of the route bus, the permit is liable to be suspended or cancelled. However, no such action can be taken if the State or Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that the permit holder was prevented by sufficient cause from operating the service or had obtained prior permission from the State or Regional Transport Authority to suspend the service for the period during which the vehicle was not operated. Section 86 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the transport authorities to suspend or cancel the permit for violation of the permit condition.

23. Ext.P1 permit in respect of the stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-09-M-5779 was issued in the year 2003 and was subsequently renewed on 17.01.2012 for a further period of five years, up to 16.01.2017. The tax in respect of the vehicle was paid only up to 30.06.2013. Before the expiry of the permit, the petitioner submitted an application dated 23.12.2016 seeking its renewal for the period from 17.01.2017 to 16.01.2022. The stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-09-M-5779 completed 15 years on 11.07.2018 from the date of its original registration and became unfit to operate as Ordinary Limited Stop Service. A later model vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on 22.11.2024. Ext.P9 application for replacement was filed on 28.01.2025. Ext.P10 NOC from the financier of the vehicle KL-09-M-5779 was received only on 27.01.2025. The vehicle of the petitioner was not in operation since 2013, for more than 12 years, during the currency of the permit and thereafter. As per the averments made by the petitioner in the appeal before the STAT, the vehicle covered by the permit had become dilapidated and was not fit for use on the road. The petitioner could not procure another vehicle to replace it due to paucity of funds, as she had to spend substantial amounts on the treatment of her mother. So there was no substitution of the route bus. Admittedly, the petitioner had not obtained prior permission from the Regional Transport Authority to suspend the service for the period during which the vehicle was not operated. The only question, therefore, is whether the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from operating the service. It was this limited issue that the STAT remitted to the RTA for consideration vide Ext.P18 judgment. The RTA, by Ext. P19, found that the petitioner could not furnish any satisfactory explanation constituting sufficient cause for not operating the service throughout the currency of the permit. Accordingly, the RTA found that the permit cannot be granted by invoking the exception provided under Rule 152 of the Rules. It is trite that questions of fact arising under the Motor Vehicles Act are to be decided by the authorities constituted under the Act. Therefore, unless the findings are shown to be perverse or arbitrary, this Court would not interfere with the finding in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

24. According to Sri.Deepak, the cancellation of permit for breach of the provisions contained in Rule 152 of the Rules can be done only during the currency of the permit. It is true that the petitioner's permit was not cancelled under Rule 152 for failure to use the vehicle during the currency of the permit. Nevertheless, when STAT, by Ext.P18 judgment, directed the RTA to consider whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the exception provided under Rule 152, the petitioner had no case that such a course was impermissible merely because the permit had expired. Further, during the currency of the permit, the petitioner did not take any steps for substitution of route bus or for obtaining prior permission for suspension of service. Thereafter, pursuant to Ext.P18 judgment of the STAT, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to address the issue under Rule 152. The mere fact that the petitioner's permit was not cancelled during its currency does not confer upon her any right to insist on renewal of the permit despite her breach of the condition of permit. This Court, in Bhouman (supra), while dealing with the effect of a permit not having been cancelled despite the operator's default, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held as follows:

                  “Under S.47 of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority in considering an application for permit must have due regard to the interests of the public generally also among other matters. The interests of the travelling public demand that an application for renewal by an operator who not only committed default of service but ceased to be the registered owner of the vehicle for which the permit was issued must be rejected. R.205 of the Rules insists that the application for renewal of a permit shall be in form 'PRA'. One of the details to be furnished in the application for renewal of permit in the above form is the registration mark of the vehicle covered by the permit. If these are the requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Kerala Motor Vehicles R.1961, an operator like the petitioner, who not only defaulted the service on the route but also ceased to own the vehicle for which the permit was issued, will not be entitled to a renewal of his permit. The fact that his permit was not actually cancelled before the application for renewal was submitted cannot be an excuse for insisting that he should get his permit renewed. It is immaterial whether on the date of the application for renewal the petitioner's permit was not, as a matter of fact, cancelled.”

                  Where a stage carriage has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted on any day during the currency of the permit, without sufficient cause, the permit is liable to be cancelled and the operator is not entitled to renewal of the permit, merely because the permit had not been cancelled on the date of the application for renewal.

25. Pursuant to Ext.P18 judgment of the STAT, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to address the issue under Rule 152. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that no show-cause notice under Rule 152 was issued cannot be sustained and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged.

26. The permit of the petitioner expired on 16.01.2017. Since the petitioner was found not entitled to exception provided in Rule 152 of the Rules, and the permit was cancelled as per Ext. P19, the application for renewal of permit and Ext. P9 application for replacement are not maintainable. Under Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, an application for replacement of vehicle can be submitted only by the holder of permit. Ext. P9 application for replacement is not submitted during the currency of the permit. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext. P19 order. The prayer of the petitioner for direction to the RTA to reconsider the applications for renewal of permit and replacement of vehicle is rejected. Consequently, the prayer for direction to the Secretary, RTA to reconsider the application for temporary permit is also rejected. W.P (C) No.33880 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed.

In the light of dismissal of W.P. (C) No.33880 of 2025, the challenge against Ext. P6 order in W.P. (C) No. 37878 of 2025 cannot be sustained. The petitioner is not entitled for temporary permit under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act and W.P. (C) No. 37878 of 2025 is also dismissed.