JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was granted renewal of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Jaipur Diggi-Deoli amalgamated route. It appears that before the renewal was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner was plying the bus No. R(Sic)X 399 of 1958 model and the route is mixed 'A' and 'C' Class in nature, though in the petition it has been stated only a 'C' Class route, while granting the renewal of the permit on the aforesaid route to the petitioner, the R.T.A. under its Resolution No. 22, granted renewal to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner will replace the bus of the prescribed model within three months. There is no dispute that the petitioner did not replace the vehicle within a period of three months as aforesaid. The petitioner applied to the R.T.A. It is not known whether he has applied within three months or thereafter, but the R.T.A. under its order dated 10-10-1986 (Annexure 3) extended the period by two months with a pre-emptory condition that if within the extended period the vehicle is not replaced by a prescribed model, the permit will stand revoked. Still the petitioner did not do it. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he did not know about the above order. The petitioner again applied for extension of time but under order Annexure 5 dated 22-1-1987, in view of the pre-emptory condition imposed under Annexure 3 the application was rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal before the S.T.A.T., and secured an order of stay and was allowed to plny on the old model but ultimately on 15-9-1988, the appeal was not pressed and as such was dismissed. 3. The first contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no condition while granting the renewal could have been imposed by the R.T.A. and in this connection the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the provisions of Section 58 and 48 Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (for short the MV. Act) The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is only by virtue of Section 58(2) of the M.V. Act that the provisions of Section 48 are attracted even at the time of renewal. Act) The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is only by virtue of Section 58(2) of the M.V. Act that the provisions of Section 48 are attracted even at the time of renewal. According to the learned Counsel, it is only the procedure prescribed for the grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit under Section 48 which is made applicable at the time of renewal, otherwise no such condition can be imposed, which could have been imposed under Section 48 of the M.V. Act while granting the permit. A further contention has been made that a condition of model could not have been imposed while granting the permit for renewal because there is no condition of a model which could be imposed under Section 48(3)(i)(ii), the R.T.A. had no jurisdiction to impose the condition. We may state that this contention has no force A look at sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the M.V. Act will show that a permit may be renewed on an application made and it is to be treated as if it is an application for the grant of permit and, therefore, Section 48 of the M V. Act straight away comes into play. If that be so, to us there appears to be no dispute that while granting the permit and therefore, also while granting the renewal, a condition can be made and the grant of permit can be conditional and the R.T.A. has jurisdiction to lay a condition in the permit. Sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the M.V. Act, and more so its Clause (xxiii), provides that the R.T.A. has jurisdiction to attach any such condition which can be prescribed and "prescribed" is well known, according to the rules. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68 of the M.V. Act, the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 (for short the Rules) were framed and a perusal of Rule 84-A will show that a condition regarding model of the vehicles can be imposed. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68 of the M.V. Act, the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 (for short the Rules) were framed and a perusal of Rule 84-A will show that a condition regarding model of the vehicles can be imposed. The said rule 84-A provides that in pursuance of any general or specific direction issued by the State Transport Authority in this behalf, a condition may at the time of the grant or renewal of a (permit for Transport Vehicle) be attached to the effect that the (Motor Vehicles) in respect of which such permit is granted or renewed shall not be of a model earlier than a specified year. There is no dispute that the State Transport Authority has laid down the models of various vehicles to be plied on A, B or C Class routes or the mixed routes. 4. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 84 A is beyond powers of the State Government under Section 68 of the M.V. Act because a perusal of the aforesaid Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the MV. Act will show that only rules can be framed by the State Government in respect of the matter enumerated in the various clauses. Perhaps the learned Counsel has lost sight of the words "without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power" in Sub-section (1) of Section 68. Thus the power under subsection (1) of Section 68 of the M.V. Act is general and it will be clear that the State Government may make the rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter. Therefore, it is in exercise of genera} power of making the rules that Rule 84A, which before us appears to be necessary for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of the Chapter for providing an efficient service, can be made. Therefore, we are of the opinion that not only while granting a permit but also while renewing the permit in accordance with general, specific direction of the S.T.A.T., the R.T.A. could have laid down a condition regarding model of the vehicle, therefore, the condition was rightly laid down and could be laid down. 5. Therefore, we are of the opinion that not only while granting a permit but also while renewing the permit in accordance with general, specific direction of the S.T.A.T., the R.T.A. could have laid down a condition regarding model of the vehicle, therefore, the condition was rightly laid down and could be laid down. 5. Having said above that a condition could be imposed at the time of renewal of the permit in respect of the model also, there appears to be no dispute that within a period of three months of the grant of permit the vehicle which was of the year 1958, almost about 28 years old was not replaced. There was no pre-emptory condition in the resolution of the R.T.A. that in case the vehicle of the prescribed model is not replaced within a period of three months, the permit shall stand revoked. In the order on the application of the petitioner himself while granting two months extension, it is clearly mentioned that this condition is pre-emptory and the petitioner thereafter did not care to replace the vehicle of the prescribed model and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner under law was entitled for any indulgence by the R.T.A. and so far as the S.T.A.T. the petitioner having filed an appeal having filed an appeal having not pressed it, with-drew it and as such was dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner gives out that he did not press it because the appeal was not maintainable having been filed beyond time but there appears to be nothing in the order of dismissal of appeal by the S T. A T. The learned Counsel has referred to (he case of Shri Gopal v. The S.T.A.T. and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1457/1976, decided on 19th Aug., 1980 . In the aforesaid case the learned Single Judge has said that while sanctioning the renewal of an existing permit it is permissible for the transport authority to impose a condition, and such a condition would have to be treated as a condition contained in the permit. The breach of such a condition imposed by the transport-authority at the time of sanctioning the renewal of a permit can, therefore, be a ground for cancellation of the permit. The breach of such a condition imposed by the transport-authority at the time of sanctioning the renewal of a permit can, therefore, be a ground for cancellation of the permit. We may state that there is no specific order yet of revocation of the permit though in the order of the R.T.A. dated 15-10-86 (Annexure 3), while extending the period by two months, it was stated that if the petitioner does not comply with the condition, the permit shall stand revoked. Thus no fresh notice in the facts and circumstances of the case of revocation appears to be necessary. The petitioner was granted renewal to provide the vehicle of the prescribed model in the interest of general public, he did not provide the same even after having sought extension, even during the pendency of the appeal before the S.T.A.T. and these circumstances are not such which preserve any indulgence from this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, more so when the petitioner did not press his appeal before the Tribunal, may be for any reason what so ever. 6. So far as the question that the petitioner has actually purchased the vehicle or not as alleged by him we will say that Annexure-6 letter will show that there is no date and from a perusal of a photostat copy, it will show that it is only the date of attestation of the copy being a true copy. Even assuming that the petitioner purchased the vehicle of the prescribed model for which we say nothing for the reasons stated, it can be said that it has been purchased in the month of November, 1988, when the permit was renewed with a condition of replacing the vehicle within three months by a prescribed model. 7. We find no case. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******