Honble A.K. MATHUR, J.—This writ petition and the Writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule A appended to this order are disposed of by this common order as they involve similar question of law. 2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in Chand Mal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan are taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner is an existing operator of Nimbahera-Bhadsora route on which he holds a non-temporary stage carriage permit valid upto 27. 5 .1995 under which he is plying his vehicle and in providing services on the said route on the strength of the above permit. The petitioner before the grant of the above permit under the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, Udaipur dated 24.5.1990 submitted an application for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on his vehicle RSY 6417 of 1973 model. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur vide his order dated 6.10.1989 granted one non-temporary stage carriage permit to the petitioner. However, while granting the permit, the R.T.A. attached a premptory condition directing the petitioner to replace his vehicle RSY 6417 of 1973 model by a vehicle of the prescribed model on or before 31.3.1990 falling which the grant of permit to the petitioner shall automatically come to an end and cancelled. Thereafter, the model condition was further extended upto 31.8.1990. 4. However, one Sajjan Bai who is an existing operator of Chittorgarh Sanwariyaji route which overlaps the petitioners route from Nimbahera to San-wariyaji filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur dated 30. 3. 1990 and in that the S.T.A.T. by his order dated 24.6.1990, dismissed the revision, and imposed a pre-emptory condition in the said order that the petitio-ner should replace his vehicle RSY 6417 of 1973 model by a vehicle of the pres-cribed model by 31.8.1990 failing which the grant made in his favour by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur under its order dated 24. 5. 1990 shall automatically stand cancelled. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the section 72(2) (x) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires that the vehi-cles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications shall be used by the permit holders. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the section 72(2) (x) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires that the vehi-cles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications shall be used by the permit holders. But this condition attached to a permit shall not prevent the continued use for a period of two years from the date of publica-tion of the approved specifications of any vehicle operating on that date. 6. Mr. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Rules known as the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules 1951 were framed and were in froce and according to Rule 84-A a power was conferred on the State Transport Authority to issue any general or specific direction regarding model of vehicle. But no rules have been framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There-fore, the attachment of model condition cannot be enforced by the authorities. 7. Mr. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate submitted that under the Act of 1988 the Rules known as the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1990) have been framed and in that under Rules 5.10 the conditions regarding model of vehicle has been pro-vided- Rule 5.10 of the Rules of 1990 provides that a model condition can be laid down by the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority in exercise of this power has already passed the resolution No. 1/91 dated 3.1.1991 whereby various model conditions have been prescribed for various types of routes and various kinds of permits. Therefore, learned counsel submits that now conditions have already been specified by the State Transport Authority therefore, the model conditions can now be laid down/attached with a permit. 8. In this back-ground, I have to examine the legal position. Therefore, learned counsel submits that now conditions have already been specified by the State Transport Authority therefore, the model conditions can now be laid down/attached with a permit. 8. In this back-ground, I have to examine the legal position. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these writ petitions, it will be convenient to refer to the provisions of Sec. 72 (2)(x) which reads as under : "72(2)(x): that vehicles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications shall be used : Provided that the attachment of this condition to a permit shall not prevent the continued use, for a period of two years from the date of publica-tion of the approved specifications, of any vehicle operating on that date : Rule 5.10 of the Rules of 1990 reads as under: "5.10. Permit for Transport Vehicle: Conditions regarding model of vehicle. 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 of renewal of a permit for Transport vehicle be attached to the effect to the Motor Vehicle in respect of which such permit granted or renewed shall not be of a model earlier than a specified year." 9. In the purported exercise of the powers under Rule 5.10 the State Transport Authority has passed the Resolution No. 1/91 dated 3.1.1991, which reads as under: ^^dk;kZy; jkT; ifjogu izkf/kdkj] t;iqj fo"k; %& jktLFkku eksVj;ku fu;e] 1990 ds fu;e 5-10 ds vUrxZr ifjogu okguksa ds fy, vuqKk i=ksa ds Lohd`fr@uohuhdj.k dh eksMy dh krksZa dk iqujkoyksduA jkT; ifjogu izkf/kdkj }kjk le; le; ij fofHkUu izdkjksa ds ifjogu okguksa ds fy, vuqKk i=ksa dh Lohd`fr@uohuhdj.k ds fy, eksMy dh krsZa fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ FkhA fofHkUu Lrjksa ij ;g ekax vkrh jgh gS fd ifjogu okguksa ds fy, vuqKk i= dh Lohd`fr o uohuhdj.k ds fy, eksMy dh tks krZ j[kh gS mudk iqujkoyksdu fd;k tkosaA tu fgr ds eís utj j[krs gq, jkT; ifjogu izkf/kdkj jktLFkku eksVj;ku fu;e 1990 ds fu;e 5-10 }kjk iznRr kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] fofHkUu izdkj ds ifjogu okguksa ds vuqKk i= dh Lohd`fr@uohuhdj.k ds fy, eksMy dh fuEu krZ fu/kkZfjr djrh gSA Ø-la- okguksa esa vuqKki=ksa dk izdkj u;s vuqKki= Lohd`fr djrs le; o"kZ ftuls iqjkus eksMy dh okgu u gks uohuhdj.k djrs le; o"kZ ftuls iqjkus eksMy dh okgu u gks 1- LVst dsjst vuqKki=ksa ds fy, 1½ ^^v** Js.kh ds ekxZ ds fy, 10 15 2½ ^^c** Js.kh ds ekxZ ds fy, 15 25 3½ ^^l** Js.kh ds ekxZ ds fy, 20 25 2- lafonk okguksa ds vuqKki=ksa ds fy, v½ lHkh izdkj dh clsa 1- leLr jktLFkku vuqKki= ds fy, 10 10 2- ,d jhtu ds vuqKki= ds fy, 15 15 c½ VsDlh dsc 10 10 l½ VsDlh dsc 1- vUrjkZT;h vuqKki= ds fy, 5 8 2- vky jktLFkku ds vuqKki=ksa ds fy, 8 13 3- ,d jhtu fljkgh ftys ds vuqKki=ksa ds fy, 10 15 4- ,d ftys fljksgh dks NksM+dj uxjikfydk {ks= ds vuqKki=ksa ds fy, 15 15 n½ VsEiksa 10 20 /k½ vksVksa fjDkk@vksVks rkaxk 10 20 izksnfkd ifjogu izkf/kdkjksa dks funsZk fn;s tkrs gS o eksMy dh bu krksZa dh ikyuk dh tkosaA ,l Mh& ehuk{kh gwtk lnL; jkT; ifjogu izkf/kdkj 10. Now, in this back-ground, the question is as to from what date the model conditions have to be enforced. Section 72 (2)(x) lays down that a notification will have to be issued by the State Transport Authority specifying the types of the vehicles which should conform to the approved specifications and that shall form part of the conditions of the permit. Section 72 (2)(x) lays down that a notification will have to be issued by the State Transport Authority specifying the types of the vehicles which should conform to the approved specifications and that shall form part of the conditions of the permit. Earlier under the Rules of 1951, Rule 84-A provided the imposing of a condition regarding model of the vehicle for a specified route and the permit. Similarly, now under the Rules of 1990 a resolution has been passed by the State Transport Authority which has been quoted above. Now, in terms of this, the operators have to employ the vehicles of particular specifications. But the question is as to from what date this model condition is to be operative. As per the proviso, first a duty has been cast on the State Transport Authority to issue particular specification for a particular permit and the route and that has to be published in the official gazette and after publication it will be effective after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of publication of the approved specifications. At this juncture Mr. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate is not in a position to say as to whether this resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 3.1.1991 has been published in the Gazette or not. However, in view of the proviso to sub-clause (x) of sub-section (2) of Section 72 these specifications have to be complied with by the operators after expiry of two years from the date of publication of the aforesaid resolution of the State Transport Authority. In this view of the matter, all the vehicles shall have to conform to the approved specification and all the operators of stage carriage or non-stage carriage permits will have to employ the vehicle of the specified model as prescribed by the resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 3.1.1991 under two years from the date of publication of the resolution in the official Gazette. 11. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed and the pre-emptory conditions which are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules shall stand automatically set aside.