Saikia, J.:- The writ petitioner herein impugns the judgment and order dated 23.1.82 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Assam dismissing the petitioner's appeal and affirming the deci­sion of the Regional Transport Authority, Kamrup, Gauhati refusing to renew the Periodic Stage Carriage Permit of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted Periodic Stage Carriage Permit No. 2/73 and he placed Bus No. ASZ 6423. On 23.8.80 the peti­tioner duly submitted an application for renewal of his permit and was granted a temporary permit after the expiry of the tenure of the Periodic Stage Carriage Permit till 16.5.81 pending renewal of the periodic permit. As ill luck would have it the petitioner's vehicle met with an accident while proceeding with a marriage party on 12.3.81 in which the vehicle was damaged and all its documents were lost. However, the petitioner not only filed an Eagar about the accident but also applied for duplicate copies of the lost documents in the office of the Regional Transport Authority by paying Rs. 50/- on 24.3.81. On 25.3.81 the Regional Transport Authority met and rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of his Periodic Stage Carriage Permit on the ground that no documents relating to the vehicle could be produced by his representative. The petitioner received a letter dated 21.7.81 directing him to stop plying his vehicle. Obtaining a certified copy of the order the petitioner appealed under sec­tion 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the State Transport Appe­llate Tribunal against the order dated 25.3.81 on 5.9.81 and obtained a stay order pending disposal of the appeal on 10.9.81. Even before the appeal was filed on 5.9.81, the petitioner paid the arrear tax of Rs. 2.076/- for the period from 1.7.80 to 30.6.81. During the pendency of the appeal, on 10.9.81 the petitioner filed before the District Transport officer his registration certi­ficate valid up to 30.9 81 and fitness certificate valid up to 1.8.82. He also paid on 16.10.81 tax of Rs. 50I/- for the period up to 31.12.81 and later on 13.1.82 he paid another sum of Rs. 504/- for the period up to 31.3.82 and insured the vehicle up to 12.11.82. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 23.1.82 dismissed the appeal pointing out, inter alia, that the petitioner was a defaulter in respect of payment of token tax since 1.7.80 on 25.3.81 on which date the Regional Transport Authority met. 504/- for the period up to 31.3.82 and insured the vehicle up to 12.11.82. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 23.1.82 dismissed the appeal pointing out, inter alia, that the petitioner was a defaulter in respect of payment of token tax since 1.7.80 on 25.3.81 on which date the Regional Transport Authority met. Hence this petition. There is no doubt that on 25.3.81, when the R. T. A. took up toe question of renewal of the petitioner's Periodic Stage Carriage Permit, under Rule 78 of the Assam Motor Vehicle Rules read with the provisions of Sections 57 and 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he was required to produce the documents in respect of his vehicle, particularly the registration certificate, fitness certificate, insurance certificate and tax token up-to-date. Admittedly, though the petitioner was represented before the R. T. A. none of those documents was produced and it is clear from the facts that his vehicle having met with an accident a fresh fitness certificate was yet to be obtained and the tax having been in arrear on that day no up-to-date tax token could be produced. Though, as has been observed in D- Nataraja Mudaliar vs. The State Transport Authority Madras, (1978) 4 S. C. C. 290 at para 9, "The Authority must remember that a permit holder has an ordinary right of renewal unless it is shown that outweighing reasons of public interest lead to a contrary result and that permits are not bounty but right, restricted reasonably by the Motor Vehicles Act", in the instant case admittedly no documents whatsoever could be produced before the R. T. A. at the relevant time. Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the procedure in applying for and granting permits. Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the procedure in applying for and granting permits. Section 58(2) of the Act provides : "(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit : Provided that the application for the renewal of a permit shall be made- (a) in the case of a stage carriage permit .or a public carrier's permit, not less than one hundred and twenty days before the date of its expiry; and (b) in any other case, not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry : Provided further that, other conditions being equal, an application for renewal shall be given preference over new applications for permits." Rule 78 of the Assam Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 provides : "78. Renewal of permits.-(a) Application for the renewal of a permit shall be made, in writing to the Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued, not less than six weeks in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, and sot less than one month in other cases, before the expiry of the permit, and shall be accompanied by Part A of the permit. The application shall state the period for which the renewal is desired and shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee. (b) The Regional Transport Authority renewing a permit shall call upon the holder to produce Part B or Parts B thereof, as the case may be and shall endorse Parts A and B accordingly and shall return them to the holder.” In face of the above provisions of law it cannot be said that the R. T. A was in a position to renew the petitioner's permit when no document was produced. Mr. S. N. Medhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the appellate authority took into consideration the question of default which was not mentioned by the R. T. A. itself. However, in view of the fact that the production of up-to-date tax token was necessary and tax up to date was not paid, it cannot be said that the appellate authority traveled outside the statutory requirement. The appellate order cannot be interfered with on this ground. However, in view of the fact that the production of up-to-date tax token was necessary and tax up to date was not paid, it cannot be said that the appellate authority traveled outside the statutory requirement. The appellate order cannot be interfered with on this ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that he has not only repaired the vehicle but also obtained the necessary fitness and insurance certificates up-to-date and has paid tax up to 30.6.82 and has been main­taining the vehicle in the hope of plying it in the route for which the permit was granted to him. It has also been stated that no new permit has yet been issued in the said route and naturally the public are deprived of that service. A vehicle means a considerable investment and in these days of hardship and high price maintenance of such a vehicle without plying it natur­ally means considerable loss to the petitioner. In D. Nataraja Mudaliar (Supra) it has been stated that an application for renewal should not be denied fair consideration as huge investment has gone to waste because of non-renewal". As we have not found any infirmity in the decision of the Regional Transport Authority as well as in that of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders and this petition is accordingly rejected and the Rule discharged. But under the facts and circums­tances of the case we make no order as to costs. We, however, observe that under the circumstances, namely that the petitioner has paid all his dues up-to-date and has obtained and filed before the District Transport Officer all the required certificates and documents and no alternative permit in the route has been granted to anybody else, his case may be considered in the light of the above facts should he approach the authority for a renewal or a fresh permit.