JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. 1. Mr. BD Konwar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R Saloi and Ms. Seema Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. D Saikia, learned senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, Mr. BN Sarma, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, assisted by Mr. G Sarma, learned Government Advocate and Mr. S Bora, learned standing counsel, Transport Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. Since both these appeals arise out of the same impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, they were heard together. 3. In WA No.21/2016, the appellants are registered Associations of the Share Taxis Owners. The members of the Associations operate share taxis in the Guwahati City under permits issued by the authorities. And in WA No.25/2016, the appellant is registered Association of City Bus Operators. The appellants had separately filed WP(C) Nos. 495, 1678 and 206 all of 2014 challenging the decision dated 7.12.2013 of the Regional Transport Authority, Kamrup (Metro) that no city buses and school buses which are over 15 years old and share taxis which are over 10 years shall be allowed to operate and that they shall be replaced by new vehicles within 6 months, to be fitted with GPS etc. It is to be noted that this decision of the Regional Transport Authority was followed by a consequential Government Notification dated 4.3.2014. 4. The main thrust of argument by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the Regional Transport Authority as well as the State Government had no jurisdiction and competence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to impose the aforesaid conditions and restrictions. An alternative prayer was also made that in the event of upholding the validity of the impugned decision of the Regional Transport Authority and the consequential Notification dated 4.3.2014, the vehicle operators be granted two years time for compliance in a phased manner. 5. The learned Single Judge by a detailed and well-reasoned order has dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants. The learned Single Judge while upholding the validity of the decision dated 7.12.2013 of the Regional Transport Authority and the consequential Government Notification dated 4.3.2014 has also allowed two years time from the date of Notification to the appellants for compliance. It is in this background, the appellants have filed the present appeals. 6. The learned Single Judge while upholding the validity of the decision dated 7.12.2013 of the Regional Transport Authority and the consequential Government Notification dated 4.3.2014 has also allowed two years time from the date of Notification to the appellants for compliance. It is in this background, the appellants have filed the present appeals. 6. The issue raised in the appeals has already been settled and decided by the Supreme Court against the appellants. In K.M. Ismeth Ummer vs. Regional Transport Authority, (2011) 15 SCC 288, the Supreme Court has clearly held that under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Regional Transport Authority may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a “specified description” and the expression “specified description” is wide enough to include fixation of the age of vehicle also. The Supreme Court has even held that restricting the age of vehicle for the grant of permit for a stage carriage is obviously in larger public interest, because old vehicles can cause accidents and inconvenience and therefore, the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are perfectly justified in placing such a restriction for grant of permit. 7. This being the legal position, we decline to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge against the appellants. 8. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. 9. In view of the order passed today (28.9.2016) in WA Nos. 21 of 2016 and 25 of 2016, the Caveat stands discharged.