JUDGMENT G. Sasidharan, J. 1. Petitioner gave an application for the grant of regular permit to operate service on the route Pala - Koothattukulam a portion of which will come within the jurisdiction of RTA, Ernakulam. The RTA, Ernakulam, granted concurrence and after that on 13-10-1999 in the meeting of the first respondent, decision was taken to grant permit to the petitioner. At the time of giving application for regular permit and at the lime of consideration of the application, the petitioner was having the vehicle bearing registration number KEK 6577 of 1987 model vehicle. In the application, mention is made about the vehicle. Even though decision for granting permit was taken on 13-10-1999 that was communicated to the petitioner only on 4-11-1999. In the meantime, petitioner purchased a later model vehicle KL-7/J 3655 which is a 1994 model vehicle. 2. In response to Ext. P2 proceedings, the petitioner produced the current records for issuance of regular permit already granted by the first respondent for the new vehicle KL-7/J 3655. Second respondent then sent Ext. P5 letter to the petitioner saying that production of current records in respect of stage carriage KL-7/J 3655 cannot be considered since it would be violation of R.159(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. In this original petition, petitioner seeks quashing of Ext. P5 and issuance of direction to the 2nd respondent to issue regular permit already granted by the first respondent to operate service with stage carriage KL-7/J 3655. 3. The question which arises for consideration is whether a stage carriage operator is entitled to get regular permit in respect of a vehicle which was not shown in the application for regular permit as the vehicle in respect of which the permit was applied for. The petitioner at the time of applying for regular permit was having the vehicle KEK 6577 and that vehicle was shown in the application for regular permit as the vehicle in respect of which permit was sought for. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though vehicle which the petitioner was haying at the time of giving application was shown in the application, since he sold that vehicle and purchased a later model vehicle he is entitled to get regular permit issued in respect of the new vehicle purchased by him. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though vehicle which the petitioner was haying at the time of giving application was shown in the application, since he sold that vehicle and purchased a later model vehicle he is entitled to get regular permit issued in respect of the new vehicle purchased by him. The contention raised by the respondents is that issuance of regular permit for a vehicle other than thevehicle which is shown in the application for granting regular permit is violation of R.159(1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. 4. R.159(1) says that no permit shall be issued before entering the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has been entered therein. According to the learned Government Pleader, the term "the vehicle to which it relates" in R.159(1) would indicate that what is required to be done as per clause (1) of R.159 is entering the registration mark of the vehicle to which the permit relates and here the vehicle to which the permit relates is the vehicle which was mentioned in the application for regular permit. It is also possible to say that the above term occurring in R.159(1) can mean that the registration mark which is required to be entered in the permit can be that of the vehicle to which the permit is being issued on entering the registration mark. 5. In Davis v. RTA, Trichur ( 1998 (2) KLT 1051 ) pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, it was held that the applicant is bound to give thedetails of the vehicle before granting the permit and hence the issuance of regular permit can only be in respect of the vehicle the details of which had been given at the time of filing the application. There was an appeal before the Division Bench against the above decision as W.A.No.2266 of 1998. In appeal, the judgment of the learned single Judge was set aside and the RTA was directed to issue permit in respect of a later model vehicle the current records of which were produced for issuing regular permit. 6. After issuance of regular permit also, the stage carriage operator can change the vehicle in respect of the permit. Here the question is whether there can be a change in respect of the vehicle after granting of permit and before issuance of permit. 6. After issuance of regular permit also, the stage carriage operator can change the vehicle in respect of the permit. Here the question is whether there can be a change in respect of the vehicle after granting of permit and before issuance of permit. In the light of the observations made by the two JudgeBench of this Court in W.A.No.2266 of 1998 it can be seen that when a later model vehicle is offered for the service, the authority can issue permit in respect of the later model vehicle. Here, also the petitioner now wants issuance of permit in respect of a later model vehicle. Ext. P5 letter sent by the RTA, Kottayam, would go to show that the refusal to issue permit was only for the reason that there was change in the vehicle at the time of production of current records. Refusal to issue the granted permit by saying that it is in violation of R.159(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules is not correct. This original petition is disposed of quashing Ext. P5 and directing the 2nd respondent to issue regular permit already granted by the first respondent to the petitioner to operate service on the route Pala - Koothattukulam for the stage carriage KL-7/J 3655 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.