Judgment :- Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by him, challenging Ext.P5 decision dated 18.4.2008 of the Secretary, R.T.A. and Ext.P6 decision dated 10.7.2008 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant was granted a permit on the circular route Shornur – Shornur, by Ext.P1 proceedings of the R.T.A., Thrissur. In the application, he mentioned the registration number of the vehicle, as KL 10/C-1643. It is common ground that Ext.P1 decision was communicated to the appellant and he received it on 20.3.2007. He claims that on 13.7.2007 he produced the current records of the vehicle, KL 10/B 8584. But, according to the respondents, he produced them only on 6.8.2007. So, the permit was cancelled by the R.T.A., for not producing the current records within four months, the time stipulated in Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, that is before 20.7.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the R.T.A. to reconsider the matter and again the R.T.A. decided against the petitioner/appellant by Ext.P5. The said proceeding was upheld by the S.T.A.T. by Ext.P6 judgment. The writ petition filed against those proceedings, Exts.P5 and P6, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant produced the current records of the new vehicle on 13.7.2007, which was within four months from the receipt of Ext.P1 communication. An applicant, even without a vehicle is entitled to get the permit. He need only produce the current records of the vehicle within the time limit prescribed under Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, it is submitted. But, we notice that the respondents dispute the above claim. They assert that the appellant had not produced the registration certificate of the vehicle within time and it was produced only on 6.8.2007. The said finding has been affirmed by the S.T.A.T. and the learned Single Judge. It being a finding of fact, we cannot interfere with the same. 4. Secondly, it is submitted that the appellant has mentioned the registration number of the vehicle as KL.10/C 1643 in his application. If that be so, the time limit prescribed in Rule 159(2) would not apply, it is submitted. It being a finding of fact, we cannot interfere with the same. 4. Secondly, it is submitted that the appellant has mentioned the registration number of the vehicle as KL.10/C 1643 in his application. If that be so, the time limit prescribed in Rule 159(2) would not apply, it is submitted. In support of that submission, he relies on Exts.P2 and P2(a) unreported judgments. Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as follows: "R.159(2). When the applicant is unable to produce the certificate of registration on the date of his application for permit, owing to the fact that he is not on that date in possession of the vehicle duly registered, or for some other reason, the applicant shall within one month of the sanctioning of the application by the Transport Authority or such longer period or periods not exceeding four months in the aggregate as the Authority may specify, produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before that Authority so that the particulars of the registration mark may be entered in the permit. In the event of any applicant failing to produce the certificate of registration within the period specified by the Transport Authority, the Authority may revoke its sanction of the application." If the appellant has actually produced the registration certificate of the vehicle while submitting the application, the contention raised by him relying on Exts.P2 and P2(a) judgments has to be considered on merits. But, we notice that there is no material on record to show that he has produced the registration certificate before the R.T.A. while applying for the permit. The mere mentioning of registration number of the vehicle cannot be treated as equivalent to production of the registration certificate at the time of application. So, the contention raised relying on Exts.P2 and P2(a) also fails. 5. Further, we think that the principle laid down in Ext.P2 decision, which was rendered by one of us, does not lay down the correct legal position. In the said decision, it was held as follows: "Since the registration number of the vehicle is noticed in Exts.P3 and P5 decisions, it should be assumed that the petitioner has produced the registration certificate at the time of consideration. In the said decision, it was held as follows: "Since the registration number of the vehicle is noticed in Exts.P3 and P5 decisions, it should be assumed that the petitioner has produced the registration certificate at the time of consideration. In that event, rule 159(2) will not apply in the petitioner's case." It is true that Rule 159(2) would apply only to persons who do not have a ready vehicle when they apply for permit and therefore do not produce the Registration Certificate along with the application. In such cases, the applicant, who is granted a permit, has to produce the registration certificate within the time limit prescribed in Rule 159. If an applicant has a ready vehicle and its registration certificate is produced at the time of application for permit, the presumption is that on grant of the permit, the applicant will get the permit issued immediately by producing the registration certificate and other essential documents like insurance certificate, receipt evidencing payment of Motor Vehicles Tax, etc. So, a person who has produced the registration certificate at the time of applying for the permit has to get the permit issued immediately by producing the necessary records including the registration certificate. The interpretation that he can produce the registration certificate even beyond the maximum time limit provided under Rule 159(2) runs counter to the scheme of the Rules. He has to produce the registration certificate immediately after grant of the permit. At any rate, he should produce it within the time limit prescribed under Rule 159(2). He cannot claim any special privilege on the ground that his case is not covered by Rule 159(2). Therefore, the decision in Ext.P2, which was followed in Ext.P2(a) judgment, cannot be relied on by the appellant to contend that since he has mentioned the registration number of the vehicle in his application, he can produce the registration certificate even beyond the period prescribed under Rule 159(2) of the K.M.V.Rules. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and also the judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.