JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The question that has come up for consideration in these cases is whether the Regional Transport Authority could issue regular permit in respect of a vehicle already covered by a permit. 2. Petitioner in O.P. 7925/99 made an application for regular permit for five years to operate his vehicle KER 2991 on a particular route. The said application was rejected by the R.T.A. on 25.1.99 stating that the vehicle offered was already covered by a regular permit on the route Kalluthy - Nayathodu. In O.P. 7586/99 also the R.T.A. rejected the application holding that the vehicle offered by the petitioner therein was also covered by a valid permit. Counsel for petitioner Sri. Santhosh Kumar contended that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules so as to restrain the Regional Transport Authorities from issuing permit to a vehicle which is already covered by another permit. According to him it is always possible for an operator tos surrender the permit as and when necessary. His contention is that if permit sought for is denied vehicle could be operated on the strength of a validly covered permit or else the vehicle will be off the road putting travelling public to considerable difficulties. Reference was made to R. 159 (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and contended that 30 days time has already granted by the statute to produce the current records which could be extended for another four months. The said provision would indicate, according to the counsel for petitioners that he could surrender the permit within the said period and produce the vehicle. Therefore, according to the counsel only when the permit is issued the vehicle should not be covered by another permit. 3. Government Pleader Sri. N. Raghu Raj contended that the crucial time to consider whether a permit could be issued is when the application comes up for consideration before the R.T.A. R. 159(2) speaks of only production of certificate of registration and other details and no case of surrender of permit. According to him, the R.T.A. is justified in rejecting the application since the vehicle offered by the petitioner was already covered by valid permit. 4. I had occasion to consider the scope of R. 159(2) in O.P. 17436/98. According to him, the R.T.A. is justified in rejecting the application since the vehicle offered by the petitioner was already covered by valid permit. 4. I had occasion to consider the scope of R. 159(2) in O.P. 17436/98. This Court took the view that an applicant is bound to give details of the vehicle in the application itself or atleast at the time when the application comes up for consideration before the R.T.A. When application comes up for consideration before the R.T.A., R.T.A. could decide the necessity of granting a permit on a particular route to meet the requirement of the travelling public. It is after assessing the necessity the R.T.A. grants the permit. If the vehicle offered by an operator is already covered by a permit, evidently that permi was granted by the R.T.A. considering the need of the travelling public as well as necessity of operating vehicle on particular route. If option is given to the operator to choose between permits that will be against public interest and will defeat the object of the legislation. 5. Petitioners contention if accepted the vehicle can then be covered by any number of permits. That will give an undue advantage to the operator so as to decide through which route he should operate his vehicle. It will also deny the chance of other applicants who otherwise would have got the permit. I am of the view this is not the intention of the legislation. Under the above mentioned circumstance I am of the view that if the vehicle is already covered by a valid permit R.T.A. has got jurisdiction to deny The permit applied for the same vehicle. Original Petitions are accordingly dismissed.