Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this Original Petition reminds me of the photographer without a camera. He was granted a pucca permit for a stage carriage K.L.Q. 7721 on the Alumkadavu-Paracode route. The. vehicle was seized by the Thyagaraja Financiers, Madurai on 19th December 1971 for non-payment of hire purchase instalments and the service on the above said route was continuously under default from that date. Subsequently, fresh registration certificate in respect of the vehicle was issued in favour of the hire purchase company. Even though the petitioner could not put any other vehicle on the road thereafter, he insists that his permit should be renewed for three years from 17th February 1973. 2. The petitioner was having a pucca stage carriage permit valid up to 16th February 1973 on the route Alumkadavu-Paracode in respect of the vehicle K.L. Q. 7721 owned by him. As the vehicle which was held under a hire purchase agreement with Messrs. Thyagaraja Financiers, Madurai was seized by them, the service on the route was continuously under default from 19th December 1971. After the seizure of the vehicle by the financier company, fresh registration certificate in respect of the vehicle was issued in their favour as provided in R.113 (4) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961 after complying with the procedural requirements in that respect. So, the petitioner who is the holder of the permit ceased to own the vehicle covered by the permit. Thereafter, by letter dated 2nd November 1972 the petitioner was asked to show cause why the permit of the vehicle should not be cancelled under S.60 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner in his explanation dated 17th November 1972 stated that he has made necessary arrangements for the procurement of a bus and requested for 4 months' time to produce the vehicle. Though the averment in para 8 of the Original Petition is that there was no default of service since a reserve bus was put on the road, this has been denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.T.A., Quilon. What is seen from the files is also that the petitioner defaulted service from 19th December 1971 onwards. Soon after the notice for cancellation of the permit was issued, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the permit. What is seen from the files is also that the petitioner defaulted service from 19th December 1971 onwards. Soon after the notice for cancellation of the permit was issued, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the permit. The 3rd respondent, R.T.A., at its meeting held on 15th December 1972 considered the explanation of the petitioner dated 17th November 1972 for default of service and the application for renewal of the permit dated 15th November 1972 together and by Ext. P2 proceedings dated 15th December 1972 held that the explanation offered by the petitioner for default of service is not satisfactory. It was also decided that the application for renewal need not therefore be entertained. By Ext. P2 the 3rd respondent also decided to take steps for the issue of a fresh pucca permit. 3. Against Ext. P2, the petitioner, K. S. Bhouman filed appeal No. 26 of 1973 before the 2nd respondent State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The 2nd respondent by Ext. P1 judgment dated 24th August 1973 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. It is against Exts. P1 and P2 that the petitioner has approached this Court by this Original Petition. The main contention of the petitioner is that as long as the permit is not cancelled, the 3rd respondent is bound to renew the same. The default of service made by the petitioner cannot be a reason for refusing the renewal of the permit because, as per the provisions of the Act, an application for renewal of a permit is to be treated and disposed of as if it were an application for permit. 4. The statement in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent is that the service on the route Alumkadavu-Paracode for which the petitioner was having a pucca stage carriage permit in respect of the vehicle K.L.Q. 7721 was continuously under default from 19th December 1971 onwards. The fact that the vehicle was seized by the hire purchase company and fresh registration certificate in respect of the same was issued to the said company is made clear in the counter-affidavit. The contention in the counter-affidavit is that as the petitioner has ceased to own the vehicle covered by the permit and as the service on the route was continuously under default from 19th December 1971, the petitioner's permit is liable to be cancelled under S.60(1)(c) and (e) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention in the counter-affidavit is that as the petitioner has ceased to own the vehicle covered by the permit and as the service on the route was continuously under default from 19th December 1971, the petitioner's permit is liable to be cancelled under S.60(1)(c) and (e) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As the petitioner was holding a stage carriage permit without a vehicle to serve the purpose for which the permit was granted, it was considered necessary not to renew the permit. It was under the above circumstances that the 3rd respondent by Ext. P2 refused to entertain the application for renewal. It is further contended that S.48(3) of the Act is not applicable in the case of renewal. Moreover, though S.59(2) of the Act provides for the replacement of one vehicle covered by a permit by another, the petitioner was not in a position to replace the vehicle K.L.Q. 7721 which he ceased to own from 19th December 1971. Though R.214 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles R.1961 provides for the maintenance of reserve buses, the petitioner was not having any reserve bus. The application for renewal is not entertained because the renewal of the petitioner's permit under the above circumstances will not be in the interests of public also. 5. S.2(20) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which defines 'permit' reads: "'Permit' means the document issued by the Commissioner or a State or Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage, or stage carriage, or authorising the owner as a private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle;" S. 47 of the Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority in considering the application for such stage carriage permit. S.47(1)(a) is as follows: "47. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit.-(1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely (a) the interests of the public generally;" Rule 177A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961 contains the guiding principles for the grant, variation, suspension or cancellation of a stage carriage permit. As per this rule, the applicants for the permit shall first be screened and those who are found to be unsuitable on one or more of the principles laid down in sub-rule (3) shall be disqualified. As per this rule, the applicants for the permit shall first be screened and those who are found to be unsuitable on one or more of the principles laid down in sub-rule (3) shall be disqualified. One of the principles laid down for disqualifying an applicant is his financial instability. R.205 of the Rules insists that the application for renewal of a permit shall be in form 'PRA'. As per form 'PRA', the registration mark of the vehicle covered by the permit is to be furnished in the application for renewal. S.60 of the Act provides for the cancellation and suspension of the permit. S.60(1) (c) and (e) reads: "60. Cancellation and suspension of permits. (1) The Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit (a) (b) (c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle or vehicles covered by the permit; or (d) (e) if the holder of the permit, not being a private carrier's permit, fails without reasonable cause to use the vehicle or vehicles for the purposes for which the permit was granted; or". The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that Ext. P-2 is an order under S.58 of the Act refusing to entertain an application for renewal of the permit and it is not an order under S.60 cancelling the permit. Reliance is placed on the decision in Dabal Singh v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR. 1967 Allahabad 266. In the above decision it has been held as follows: "It was open to the Regional Transport Authority to use the fact of the convictions for refusing renewal even though it had not taken any steps for cancellation or suspension of the permit under S.60. The procedure to the followed for suspending or cancelling a licence is not required to be followed for refusing to renew a licence." As per S.2(20) of the Act, permit is a document authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage or stage carriage. Here, admittedly, the petitioner is no longer the registered owner of the vehicle for which the permit was issued. S.58(2) says that the application for renewal of a permit is to be disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. Here, admittedly, the petitioner is no longer the registered owner of the vehicle for which the permit was issued. S.58(2) says that the application for renewal of a permit is to be disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. S.57 of the Act provides for the procedure in applying for and grant of permits. R.177A contains the guiding principles in the matter of grant, variation, suspension or cancellation of stage carriage permits. One of the guiding principles to be followed in disqualifying an applicant is his financial instability. 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. 6. For the reasons stated above, there is no reason to interfere with Exts. P1 and P2. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.