JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner in W.P.No.5435 of 2004 is a bus operator known as "M/s. T.S.T. Company Private Limited". During the year 1968, according to the petitioner, considering the representation of the traveling public, he was awarded a spare bus permit under Section 48(3)(xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [hereinafter referred to as "the old Act"] to perform the peak our service between “Trichy Junction” and “Srirangam”. Timing conference was also held and timings were fixed to perform the peak hour service w.e.f. 01.10.1968. Thereafter, the said spare bus permit was periodically renewed up to 12.02.1990. For the period commencing from 13.12.1990, seeking renewal of the spare bus permit for five years, the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by his proceedings dated 21.11.1991 declined to renew the spare bus permit. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Appeal No.395 of 1991 before the 2nd respondent herein. By order dated 18.04.1994, the 2nd respondent dismissed the said appeal thereby confirming the order of the 1st respondent. As against the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8504 of 1994 before this Court. By order dated 24.07.2002, this Court allowed the said writ petition, set aside the order of the 1st respondent and remitted the matter to the 1st respondent with a direction to consider the petitioner's application for renewal as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 without getting influenced by any of the observations made by the 2nd respondent in his order in Appeal No.395 of 1991 dated 18.04.1994. As against the said order of the learned single Judge of this Court, a writ appeal in W.A.No.3289 of 2002 was filed. The said writ appeal was dismissed by order dated 31.01.2003 thereby confirming the order of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench further directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the renewal application within ten days. In pursuance of the said directions, the 1st respondent held public hearing on 03.08.2003 and finally, by order dated Nil/09/2003, rejected the said application. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Appeal No.1052 of 2003 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent in turn dismissed the said appeal by order dated 04.02.2004. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with W.P.No.5435 of 2004. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.3442 of 2004 is also a bus operator. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Appeal No.1052 of 2003 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent in turn dismissed the said appeal by order dated 04.02.2004. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with W.P.No.5435 of 2004. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.3442 of 2004 is also a bus operator. Originally, one M/s. Trichy Ponmalai Transports held a spare bus permit in respect of vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN-45-H-3359 to perform the peak hour service on the route -Main Guard Gate to Ponmalai (via.) Palakarai, Mudaliar Chatram and Sethuraman Pillai colony. From M/s. Trichy Ponmalai Transports, it was transferred to M/s. Five Star Transports and from whom, it was transferred to the petitioner. The said spare bus permit attached with a condition to operate the peak hour service was granted by the Regional Transport Officer, Trichy on 16.02.1968 as per Section 48 (3) (xxi) of the old Act. The said permit was periodically renewed. Finally, the renewed permit was to expire on 07.01.1991. At that time, the permit was held by the petitioner's predecessor M/s. Five Star Transports. M/s.Five Star Transports made an application for renewal of the said permit along with the condition to do peak hour service for a period of another five years. The same was rejected by the 1st respondent. As against the same, an appeal was preferred in Appeal No.391 of 1991 before the 2nd respondent. In pursuance of an interim order, the petitioner was operating the bus. Finally, the appeal in Appeal No.391 of 1991 was allowed by the 2nd respondent thereby remitting the matter to the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the 1st respondent held hearing and finally, the 1st respondent, by his order dated 28.06.1994, granted renewal of the spare bus permit alone and rejected the condition imposed in the year 1968 to do peak hour service. Thereafter, the then permit holder M/s. Five Star Transports preferred an application in R.P.No.46 of 1994 before the 2nd respondent seeking direction under Section 214(2) of the M.V.Act 1988. By virtue of an order of stay granted by the 2nd respondent, the permit holder continued to operate the bus. By order dated 22.12.1995, the 2nd respondent dismissed R.P.No.46 of 1994. In the mean time, the permit was transferred in the name of the petitioner. By virtue of an order of stay granted by the 2nd respondent, the permit holder continued to operate the bus. By order dated 22.12.1995, the 2nd respondent dismissed R.P.No.46 of 1994. In the mean time, the permit was transferred in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner impleaded himself as party in R.P.No.46 of 1994. After the dismissal of R.P.No.46 of 1994, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.1010 of 1996. On account of an interim order passed by this court, the petitioner continued to operate the peak hour service. Ultimately, by order dated 11.09.2002, this court allowed W.P.No.1010 of 1996 and directed the 1st respondent to consider the renewal application of the petitioner in terms of the MV Act, 1988 and pass appropriate orders. As against the said order of the learned single Judge, the 1st respondent preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.3594 of 2002 and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 31.01.2003. The Division Bench further issued a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter and pass order within ten days. In pursuance of the said order of the Division Bench, the 1st respondent held hearing on 03.03.2003 in which the 3rd respondent participated and raised objection. Finally, the 1st respondent dismissed the renewal application refusing to renew the permit with the condition to operate peak hour service. 3. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.976 of 2003. Again by virtue of an interim order, the petitioner continued to operate the peak hour service. The 2nd respondent by order dated 04.02.2004 dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the 1st respondent. As against the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has come up with W.P.No.3442 of 2004. 4. During the pendency of these writ petitions, on account of interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioners have been operating the spare buses viz., the peak our services. 5. As against the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has come up with W.P.No.3442 of 2004. 4. During the pendency of these writ petitions, on account of interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioners have been operating the spare buses viz., the peak our services. 5. In these writ petitions, it is pointed out that as per Section 217-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [herein after referred to as "the MV Act, 1988"], notwithstanding the repeal by sub-section (1) of Section 217 of the enactments referred to in that subsection, any certificate of fitness or registration or licence or permit issued or granted under the said enactments may be renewed under this Act. It is contended that the application of the petitioners for renewal ought not to have been rejected inasmuch as the petitioners have not fallen under any one of the deficienciesmentioned in Section 81 (4) of the MV Act, 1988. It is further contended that under sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Old Act, a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. Relying on this provision, it is contended that while considering an application for renewal, the transport authority can impose any new condition, vary or modify any condition already attached in view of the said provision. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further point out that in the MV Act, 1988 in Section 81, the words "and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit" are missing. Therefore, according to him, as per the MV Act, 1988, the Regional Transport Authority is bound to renew the permit along with the conditions attached to the permit. In other words, according to the learned senior counsel, while renewing the permit, the Regional Transport Authority has no power to modify, vary or attach any condition. The learned senior counsel would further submit that if the authority wants to vary the conditions, it could do so only under sub-section (2) (xxii) of Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988, that too after affording sufficient opportunity as provided in the provision. In the instant cases, according to the learned senior counsel, the requests of the petitioners for renewal of the permits have been rejected as the permits carry a condition to operate the peak hour services. In the instant cases, according to the learned senior counsel, the requests of the petitioners for renewal of the permits have been rejected as the permits carry a condition to operate the peak hour services. The 1st respondent in the impugned order directed the petitioners to make fresh applications for spare bus permits without asking for condition attached to the permit to operate the peak hour services. This, according to the learned senior counsel, is illegal. The learned senior counsel would further point out that even the 2nd respondent has failed to consider these legal aspects while passing the impugned orders. Thus, according to him, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the petitioners are entitled for renewal of spare bus permits along with a condition to operate the peak hour services. 6. Since common legal issues are involved, both the writ petitions were heard together. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5435 of 2004 advanced his arguments at length taking me through the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rulesin order to substantiate his contention that the impugned order is not sustainable. Mr.K.Alagirisamy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3442 of 2004 while adopting the arguments of Mr.V.T.Gopalan, supplemented the same by advancing further arguments. 7. Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader and Mr.N.Sakthivel, Government Advocate advanced arguments on behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, learned Addl. Government Pleader advanced arguments on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 8. Before going into the actual legal issues involved in these writ petitions, let us look into the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the first. 9. These two writ petitions relate to stage carriage [spare bus] permits. The term "stage carriage" is defined in sub-section (40) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1988 which reads thus:- "stage carriage"means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey;" 10. The term "permit" is defined in sub-section (31) of Section 2 the MV Act, 1988 which reads thus:- "permit"means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle;" 11. The term “transport vehicle” is defined in sub-section (47) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1988, which reads as follows:- “transport vehicle”means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle; 12. The term "public service vehicle" is defined in sub-section (35) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1988, which reads as follows:- "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxi-cab, a motor-cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage;" 13. From a reading of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that a stage carriage means, a motor vehicle and if the said motor vehicle is to carry passengers, it is a public service vehicle and for operating such public service vehicle, a permit is required. The person, who owns such a motor vehicle, is the owner as defined in sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1988. Thus, it is obvious that the term "permit" is not traceable to any individual or route, but, it is traceable to a "motor vehicle". If it is a stage carriage permit, the said motor vehicle can carry passengers as per the permit. 14. Under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988, subject to any rules that may be made under the Act, the Regional Transport Authority may, attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions enumerated therein which are thus: "(i) that the vehicle shall be used only in a specified area, or on a specified route or routes; (ii) that the operation of the stage carriage shall be commenced with effect from a specified date; (iii) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips to be provided in relation to any route or area generally or on specified days and occasions; ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (vii) the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the stage carriage, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons; ... ... ... ... ... ... (xiii) that fares shall be charged in accordance with the approved fare table; (xvii) the vehicles shall be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions. 15. It is only in exercise of the power conferred upon the Regional Transport Authority under Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988, the route upon which the stage carriage is to be operated is mentioned, which is known as condition attached to the permit. As per subsection (2) (xxii) of Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988, the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month, vary the conditions of the permit; or attach to the permit further conditions. 16. The term either "spare bus" or "reserve stage carriage" has not been defined anywhere in the MV Act, 1988. In sub-section (2) (xvii) of Section 72, the expression "reserve" has been employed. For better understanding, the said provision is again reproduced hereunder:- "the vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions" 17. The term "reserve stage carriage" as mentioned in this provision is called in common parlance as "spare bus". There is no separte provision in the MV Act, 1988 for grant of a permit for a reserve stage carriage. It is only under Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988, reserve stage carriage permit is issued by the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, any one or more of the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988 may be attached to a spare bus permit as well. Therefore, if the Regional Transport Authority intends to vary or modify or to attach any new condition to the spare bus permit, it could be done only under sub-section (2) (xxii) of Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988. 18. So far as renewal of stage carriage permit is concerned, it is dealt with in Section 81 of the MV Act, 1988. 18. So far as renewal of stage carriage permit is concerned, it is dealt with in Section 81 of the MV Act, 1988. Under sub-section (4) of Section 81 of the MV Act, 1988, the Regional Transport Authority may reject an application for renewal of permit on one or more of the conditions enumerated thereunder which are as follows:- "81. Duration and renewal of permits. - ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (4) The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the following grounds, namely :- (a) the financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or decrees for payment of debts remaining unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, prior to the date of consideration of the application ; (b) the applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service by the applicant, namely :- (i) plying any vehicle - (1) without payment of tax due on such vehicle ; (2) without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for payment of such tax and then stop the plying of such vehicle ; (3) on any unauthorised route ; (ii) making unauthorised trips: Provided that in computing the number of punishments for the purpose of clause (b), any punishment stayed by the order of an appellate authority shall not be taken into account : Provided further that no application under this sub-section shall be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..." 19. Since, I have held that it is only under Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988, a spare bus permit is granted, as a corollary, it should be understood that such a spare bus permit can be renewed only under the provision in sub-section (4) of Section 81 of the MV Act, 1988. It needs to be noted that there is no separate provision in the MV Act, 1988 dealing with the renewal of the spare bus permit. 20. It needs to be noted that there is no separate provision in the MV Act, 1988 dealing with the renewal of the spare bus permit. 20. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that an application for renewal can be rejected only on any one of the grounds enumerated in sub-section (4) of Section 81 of the MV Act, 1988 and not on any other grounds. But, in the instant cases, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the renewal applications of the petitioners have been rejected not on any one or more of the grounds enumerated in sub-section (4) of Section 81, but on the ground that the petitioners wanted the conditions to operate the peak hour services to be attached to the permits while renewing the same. As pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, as per Section 58 of the old Act, while renewing a stage carriage permit, it was within the power of the Regional Transport Authority to vary or to attach further conditions. Since the words "and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit" are missing in Section 81 of the MV Act, 1988, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, while renewing a stage carriage permit, the Regional Transport Authority cannot either vary or attach new conditions to the permit. 21. Now, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that in the instant cases, though the permits, which were sought to be renewed, were spare bus permits, still the conditions attached to the same for operating the peak hour services cannot be varied while considering the requests for renewal of permits. The learned senior counsel would further point out that the permits, which were issued in the year 1968 were renewed in the past periodically with the very same conditions to operate the peak hour services. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, it is illegal on the part of the 1st respondent to insist the petitioners to apply for fresh spare bus permits without conditions to operate the peak hour services. 22. The learned Advocate General would vehemently dispute the correctness of the above arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, it is illegal on the part of the 1st respondent to insist the petitioners to apply for fresh spare bus permits without conditions to operate the peak hour services. 22. The learned Advocate General would vehemently dispute the correctness of the above arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The learned Advocate General would, however, concede that the wholesale rejection of the renewal applications in the instant cases is not correct. He would submit that the 1st respondent ought to have renewed the spare bus permits but without condition to operate the peak hour service. He would further submit that the 1st respondent is now prepared to renew the spare bus permits in question without condition to operate the peak hour service. The said statement is recorded. 23. In view of the above submission made by the learned Advocate General, what remains to be considered is as to whether the Regional Transport Authority can renew the spare bus permit without condition to operate peak hour services or whether the Regional Transport Authority is legally bound to simply renew the spare bus permits with the original condition to operate the peak hour service. 24. As I have already stated, the grant of stage carriage permit attaching a condition to operate regular public service vehicle on a specified route as well as the spare bus permit is governed only by a common provision viz., Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988. Therefore, under the said provision, the Regional Transport Authority is fully competent to attach any condition as enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988 to the permit. There can be no doubt that in respect of a regular stage carriage while granting permit, the Regional Transport Authority can attach the condition prescribing the route and the timing, etc. for operating such stage carriage. Similarly, while granting a spare bus permit under Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988, the Regional Transport Authority can attach any condition as enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988, which, in my considered opinion, does not include a condition to operate either on regular basis on any route or as a peak hour service. The reasons for this conclusion, I will elaborately deal with herein below. 25. The reasons for this conclusion, I will elaborately deal with herein below. 25. As we have already noticed, neither the term "reserve stage carriage" nor the term "spare bus" has been defined in the MV Act, 1988. From sub-section (2) (xvii) of Section 72, it could be understood that a reserve stage carriage means a stage carriage, which a holder of regular permit should keep for the purpose of maintaining the operation, in the event, the main stage carriage could not be operated due to circumstances like, breakdown, etc. Therefore, while granting a stage carriage permit, the Regional Transport Authority may attach condition to such permit making it imperative for the holder of such permit to keep a spare bus. Logically, the said permit should have a condition permitting the said vehicle to be operated in the very same route when the holder of the regular permit could not operate the main vehicle due to any unavoidable circumstances like breakdown, etc. Therefore, the spare bus permit can have condition attached to it permitting such spare bus to operate only on occasions when the main bus could not be operated in the route prescribed in the main stage carriage permit. 26. Sub-section (2) (xvii) of Section 72 further deals with the special occasions. It states that the reserve vehicle should be kept to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions. Here, the term "special occasions" has not been defined anywhere in the MV Act, 1988 as well as in the old Act. According to the learned Advocate General, special occasion means, occasions like festivals, conferences, etc. Peak hour on every day cannot be termed as a special occasion. I agree with the said contention of the learned Advocate General. Here, the term "special occasions" needs to be underscored in the context in which it has been employed. It is not on every "ordinary occasion", a spare bus could be allowed to be operated. To the contrary, it is only on "special occasions", a spare bus can be allowed to be operated. Thus, the occasion should carry with it something special. The peak hours cannot be termed as special occasion as enumerated in sub-section (2) (xvii) of Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988. Therefore, there may be a condition attached to a spare bus permit, to operate the spare bus only on such specified special occasions. Thus, the occasion should carry with it something special. The peak hours cannot be termed as special occasion as enumerated in sub-section (2) (xvii) of Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988. Therefore, there may be a condition attached to a spare bus permit, to operate the spare bus only on such specified special occasions. If the spare bus is permitted to be operated every day during the morning and evening hours, it will amount to grant of yet another regular stage carriage permit. Thus, in my considered opinion, attachment of a condition to operate a spare bus on regular basis during peak hours is wholly without jurisdiction. To put it otherwise, neither the Regional Transport Authority nor the State Transport Authority has got any power to attach a condition to a spare bus permit, permitting the operation of such spare bus regularly on every day during peak hours by calling such peak hours as special occasions. It is brought to my notice that in the whole of the State, except in the cases of four spare buses, in no other case, the spare bus permit holder has been permitted to operate the spare bus on regular basis on the route calling the same as peak hour service. 27. At this juncture, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ShaikMadar Saheb v. State of A.P., (1972) 4 SCC 635 . It was a case where the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the owner of the spare bus is liable to pay the motor vehicle tax on par with the regular stage carriage bus. The Hon'ble Supreme Court analysed the basic difference between the stage carriage permit for operating the bus on a route regularly and a spare bus permit. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the spare bus cannot be allowed to be operated regularly and so, the motor vehicle tax leviable for such bus cannot be on par with regular stage carriage bus operated on a route. In paragraph 21 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “21. .................. While it is true that the spare buses are not allowed to be run regularly we see no reason to hold that because of this the levy is unjustified, or ceases to be a compensatory tax. In paragraph 21 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “21. .................. While it is true that the spare buses are not allowed to be run regularly we see no reason to hold that because of this the levy is unjustified, or ceases to be a compensatory tax. As was pointed out by the High Court, under Section 3 of the Act the State Government was empowered by notification to direct that a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State and a vehicle keptfor use as a standby was therefore subject to levy under the taxing provisions. It was absolutely imperative for the owner of a fleet of buses to maintain some spare vehicles to be available for substitution in the case of a breakdown. Every owner having five buses is required to maintain one spare bus and operators having more than ten buses are to keep two such buses available. Although they cannot be allowed to run regularly it is essential for the proper regulation of the transport business that some spare buses should be available to avoid inconvenience or hardship to passengers. Accordingly the levy of a tax on such buses which can at any time be put on the road is justified in like manner as in the case of regular buses as a compensatory levy. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have no doubt that in the cases on hand, the condition attached to the spare bus permits to operate as peak hour services is wholly without jurisdiction and so it is void. The provision regarding the spare bus permit is analogous in the old Act also. At the time when these two spare bus permits were issued in the year 1968, the then Regional Transport Authority had attached condition to the permits in question permitting such spare buses to be operated as peak hour services. This is wholly without jurisdiction and so the same is undoubtedly void. 28. Mr.R.Rajeswaran, the learned Special Government Pleader would refer to Rule 176 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The said rule speaks of the permit conditions. This provision is complementary to Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 176 of the TNMV Rules reads as follows:- “176. 28. Mr.R.Rajeswaran, the learned Special Government Pleader would refer to Rule 176 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The said rule speaks of the permit conditions. This provision is complementary to Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 176 of the TNMV Rules reads as follows:- “176. Permit conditions.— ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (7) It shall be a condition of permit of every stage carriage that the number of vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions shall be as follows:— ............................................................” 29. This provision indicates as to how many spare buses as minimum to be kept by a stage carriage permit holder and also the maximum number of spare buses to be kept by the stage carriage to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions. Section 87 of the MV Act, 1988 deals with the temporary permits. Sub-section (1) of Section 87 reads as follows:- "87. Temporary permits. - (1) A Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in section 80, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period, which shall not in any case exceed four month, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily – (a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or (b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or (c) to meet a particular temporary need, or (d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit, and may attach to any such permit such condition as it may think fit: Provided that a Regional Transport Authority or, as the case may be, State Transport Authority may, in the case of goods carriages, under the circumstances of an exceptional nature, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a permit for a period exceeding four months, but not exceeding one year. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..." 30. The term “special occasions” as discussed hereinbefore has to be understood in the context of Section 87 of the MV Act, 1988. Section 87 makes it very clear that on a special occasion, for the conveyance of the passengers, a temporary permit may be issued. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..." 30. The term “special occasions” as discussed hereinbefore has to be understood in the context of Section 87 of the MV Act, 1988. Section 87 makes it very clear that on a special occasion, for the conveyance of the passengers, a temporary permit may be issued. Thus, in my considered opinion, the spare bus is required to be kept either to maintain the operation on the route enumerated in the stage carriage permit or to operate on special occasions, provided there is a temporary permit. Thus, the spare bus can be used in either one of the above only. That is to say, it could be operated in the same route as enumerated in the main stage carriage permit to maintain the operation for which no temporary permit need be obtained. But, in the event, the operator wants to operate the said spare bus on any special occasion, he has to get a temporary permit under Section 87 of the MV Act, 1988. As per the very same provision, such temporary permit shall not exceed four months. But, in the cases on hand, the petitioners had been permitted to operate the spare buses every day during peak hours for every five years as per renewal orders, which is contrary to the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the MV Act, 1988. A conjoint reading of Section 87 and 72 of the MV Act, 1988 along with The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, as referred to above, would clearly go to show that a spare bus cannot be allowed to be operated on a route other than for which the holder has a stage carriage permit, without obtaining a temporary permit under Section 87 of the MV Act, 1988. 31. The said view of mine can be strengthened in a different angle as well. Under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, for every stage carriage permit, the vehicle tax shall be levied as enumerated in the Second Schedule to the said Taxation Act. As per clause (2) (iii) (4) of the First Schedule, with effect, on and from the 1st day of April 1994, the tax payable in respect of a reserve stage carriage or a spare bus shall be the maximum rate payable per passenger for any regular stage carriage of the permit holder. As per clause (2) (iii) (4) of the First Schedule, with effect, on and from the 1st day of April 1994, the tax payable in respect of a reserve stage carriage or a spare bus shall be the maximum rate payable per passenger for any regular stage carriage of the permit holder. But, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, specifying that the motor vehicle tax payable in respect of a reserve stage carriage or a spare bus shall be three-fourths of the maximum rate payable per passenger for any regular Stage carriage of the permit holder. [vide G.O.Ms.No.507, Home [Transport-I], Department, dated 30.04.1998]. Thus, in the matter of motor vehicle tax, there is a vast difference between a regular stage carriage and a spare bus. If a spare is allowed to be operated in a route regularly during peak hours by calling the peak hours as special occasions, then, the holder of the permit will have to pay the motor vehicle tax only for a spare bus. But, at the same time, practically, he will have the effect of operating regular stage carriage on such route. In such view of the matter, I have hesitation to equate a permit for a spare bus to a permit for a regular stage carriage. Though both the permits are issued under Section 72 of the MV Act, 1988 and the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority can impose any condition as enumerated in the said provision, under the guise of imposing such condition, the spare bus permit should not be impliedly converted into a regular stage carriage permit. Thus, as I have already concluded, the condition permitting a spare bus to operate on regular basis during peak hours on a particular route cannot be attached to the spare bus permit. If such a condition is imposed, I am sure, it is wholly without jurisdiction and so it is void. 32. Lastly, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that while considering the application for renewal, the Regional Transport Authority is bound to renew the same along with the original condition attached to the permit and he cannot vary the same. Of course, the said argument is correct so far as a validly attached condition is concerned. 32. Lastly, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that while considering the application for renewal, the Regional Transport Authority is bound to renew the same along with the original condition attached to the permit and he cannot vary the same. Of course, the said argument is correct so far as a validly attached condition is concerned. But, the said argument cannot be countenanced when the condition originally imposed itself is wholly without jurisdiction. If the condition originally imposed is void for want of jurisdiction, then, the same cannot be attached to the permit when the permit is renewed after having come to know that the said condition is void. In other words, a void condition cannot form part of renewal. A valid condition alone can be attached when the permit is renewed. Therefore, the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in this regard is rejected. 33. In view of the foregoing discussions, I hold that the 1st respondent was not right in rejecting the renewal applications of the petitioners without renewing the spare bus permits. The 1st respondent ought to have renewed the spare bus permits, but without condition to operate the said spare buses as peak hour services. 34. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petitions are partly allowed in the following terms:- (i) The impugned orders of the 1st respondent, which were confirmed by the 2nd respondent, declining to renew the spare bus permits of the petitioners are set aside. (ii) But, it is declared that the petitioners are not entitled to have the condition attached to the spare bus permits to operate the spare buses as peak hour services. (iii) The 1st respondent is directed to renew the spare bus permits of the petitioners, but, without the condition to operate the said spare buses as peak hour services, provided the petitioners satisfy the other legal requirements. (iv) The interim directions given earlier shall stand vacated and so the petitioners shall stop forthwith, operating the the spare buses in question as peak hour services. (v) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.