JUDGMENT : R.A.Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner alongwith others was granted permanent stage carriage permit on Ghiror Eka-Basundhara route by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as R. T. A.), Meerut on 20 1- 1990 with certain conditions. By condition no. 2 it was provided that the vehicle should not be more than seven years old for 'A' class route, more than ten years old for 'B' class route and more than fifteen years old for 'C class route. In this connection that R. T. A. has also directed that the aforesaid model conditions will not apply to those grantees who were plying on the route in question on the basis of temporary permits. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging aforesaid model condition imposed by R. T. A. on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to impose such a condition and the impugned condition is arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. When this writ petition was filed before this court learned Standing Counsel was granted time to seek instructions. Petition was, thereafter, listed on 28-3-1990 on which date learned Standing Counsel was granted three weeks time for filing couter affidavit and this court granted the following interim order in favour of petitioner :- "In view of the averments made in para 5 of the supplementary affidavit that no Notification under Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 has been published so far, we direct that respondents shall not enforce condition no. 2 in resolution dated 20-1-90 passed by Regional Transport Authority, Agra and also shall not refuse to issue permit to the petitioner for that reason alone," The State has not filed any counter affidavit. As the question of imposing model condition by transport authorities is coming up frequently before the court we have decided to decide the writ petition and we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with Rules of the Court. Section 72 (2) of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the R. T. A. to grant a permit for stage carriage of specified description'. The writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with Rules of the Court. Section 72 (2) of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the R. T. A. to grant a permit for stage carriage of specified description'. Section 72 (2) is as follows : "The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to the rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the. following conditions." Section 48 (3) of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is quoted below, contains the similar provisions : "The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a service of stage carriage of a specified description or for one of more particular stage carriages and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions." 3. This court in Masiullah v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1967 Allahabad 128 laid down that the expression 'specified description' in Section 48 (3) of the old Act, does not cover the year of manufacture or model of the vehicle, consequently the model condition imposed by Transport Authority was declared ultra vires. This decision was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari v. The State Transport Authority TJ. P., 1978 TAG 439. 4. Ultimately the matter was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra v. State of U. P., AIR 1980 SC 800 , where the question involved was whether the transport authorities can impose model condition while granting Mini bus permit. Honourable Supreme Court upheld this condition by holding that. "The State's neglect in this area of policing public transport is deplorable but when it does act by prescribing a condition the court cannot be persuaded into little legalism and harmful negativism. The short question is whether the prescription that the bus shall be at least a seven year old model one is relevant to the condition of the vehicle and its passengers' comparative safety and comfort on our chaotic highways. Obviously, it is. The older the model, the less the chances of the latest safety measures being built into the vehciles. The short question is whether the prescription that the bus shall be at least a seven year old model one is relevant to the condition of the vehicle and its passengers' comparative safety and comfort on our chaotic highways. Obviously, it is. The older the model, the less the chances of the latest safety measures being built into the vehciles. Every new model incorporates new devices to reduce danger and promote comfort. Every new model assures its age to be young, fresh and strong, less likely to suffer sudden failures and breakages, less susceptible to wear and tear and mental fatigue leading to unexpected collapse.......................... We have no hesitation to hold, from the point of view of the human rights of road users, that the condition regarding the model of the permitted bus is within jurisdiction, and not to prescribe such safety clauses is abdication of statutory duty." The decision of this court in the case of Masiullah (supra) was declared by the Honourable "Supreme Court as not laying down correct law, because under Section 48 (3) power to grant a permit of the stage carriage of 'specified descriotion' will include the power to impose model condition in the permit. The Honourable Supreme Court observed "that a later model is a better safeguard and, more relevantly to the point, the year of the make and the particulars of the model are part of the description." Regarding the case of Ramesh Chandra, 1978 TAC 439, Supra, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that, even if the vehicles is fit and has fitness certificate, the authorities can impose additional requirement in the shape of the model as it will work as a further insurance against the machine failure. This judgment was followed by Honourable, Supreme Court in S. K. Bhatia v. State of U.P. AIR 1983 SC 988 . 5. Provisions of Section 72 (2) of the new Motor Vehicles Act are analogous to sub section (3) of Section 48 of the old Act, whereby the R. T. A. is empowered to grant a permit for stage carriage of 'specified description'. "Specified description" has been held by Honourable Supreme Court to include the model condition of the year of manufacture. R. T. A. as such, was fully justified in law to impose model condition. 6. "Specified description" has been held by Honourable Supreme Court to include the model condition of the year of manufacture. R. T. A. as such, was fully justified in law to impose model condition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that under the new Motor Vehicles Act, power has been given to the Central Government under Section 59 to specify the age of the vehicles and unless there is a notification by the Central Government under this Section, the transport authority cannot impose to model condition on the stage carriage. Section 59 is quoted below :- "59. Power to fix the age limit of motor vehcile-(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the public safety, convenience and objects of this Act, by notification in the official Gazette, specify the life of a motor vehcile reckoned from the date of manufacture, after the expiry of which the motor vehcile shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made there under : Provided that the Central Government may specify different ages for different classes of different types of motor vehciles. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub section (1). the Central Government may, having regard to the purpose of a motor vehcile, such as display or use for the purposes of a demonstration in any exhibition, use for the purposes of technical research or taking part in a vintage car rally, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt, by a general or specified order, subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification, any class or type of motor vehcile from the operation of sub-section (1) for the purpose to be stated in the notification (3; Notwithstanding anything contained in section 96, no prescribed authority or authorised testing station shall grant a certificate of fitness of a motor vehcile in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued under sub section (1)." Section 59 enables the Central Government to specify the life of the motor vehcile reckoned from the date of manufacture, after expiry of which the motor vehcile shall not be deemed to comply with the requirement of this Act and rules made thereunder. After the expiry of life of the vehcile in accordance with notification of the Central Government motor vehicle shall not be granted certificate of fitness and cannot be used for any purpose except those specified by sub section (2) of Section 59, such as for display, demonstration in an exhibition, use for the purpose of technical research or taking part in a vintage car rally. The object behind Section 59 is to make motor vehcile legally dead after the specified time, incapable of beige used for any purpose. This provision does not deal with model condition for the purposes of grant of permit in respect of stage carriage. Model condition is to be imposed by the transport authorities under Section 72 (2) of the Act. The purpose and file of operation of the two provisions, Section 59 and 72 (2), are different and there is no conflict between the two. What should be the age of the vehcile is to be determined by Central Government by means of notification under Section 59 and what should be model of the vehicle for which permit is to be granted, is to be decided by transport authorities under Section 72 (2). Section 59 provides for outer limit to be fixed by the Central Government for use of the vehicle and the transport authorities can fix model condition within that limit. We, as such, cannot agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that unless there is notification by Central Government under Section 59 the R. T. A. cannot impose model condition by the impugned resolution. 7. SRI A. R. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that model condition imposed by R. T. A. by impugned condition is arbitrary and is discriminatory. It may be notified that model condition has not been applied by the condition no 2 to those grantees of permit who were plying on the route earlier on the basis of temporary permit. If model condition is to be imposed for protecting the interest of travelling public, prima facie, we fail to understand how could such an exemption be granted in favour of the persons who were plying on the basis of temporary permit earlier on the route in question. If model condition is to be imposed for protecting the interest of travelling public, prima facie, we fail to understand how could such an exemption be granted in favour of the persons who were plying on the basis of temporary permit earlier on the route in question. Further argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is that there are various routes in the region which are similarly situated but no model condition has been imposed by the same R T. A. in permits granted by it. The question 6f arbitrariness and discrimination involve the question of facts which require scrutiny and investigation of facts. The petitioner has a right of appeal under Section 89 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehciles Act, 1988, against the condition. The appellate court is better forum for deciding the question of facts after summoning the records of various routes and other papers. The petitioner, as such, may file an appeal before State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the condition no. 2. 8. The petitioner, as such, may file an appeal along with certified copy of our order within fifteen days from today before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the condition. In case such an appeal is filed, the same shall be decided on merits in accordance with law within a oeriod of two months from the date of filing of the appeal and the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay order granted by this court is vacated. 9. Certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for petitioner, on payment of usual charges, within 3 days. Petition dismissed.