JUDGMENT : S. MANIKUMAR, J. This public interest litigation is filed mainly for a direction to respondents 1 to 5 - (Union of India, State of Kerala, Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited respectively) - to implement the directions contained in the decision reported in Rashinlal v. R.T.A., Kozhikode reported in 2004 (1) KLT 1091 and Raghavan v. R.T.O., Kollam reported in 2001 (2) KLT 209 with immediate effect and for a declaration that the grant of permit to the 15 year old stage carriages by the Regional Transport Authorities as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Writ petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to give necessary instructions to the Regional Transport Authorities not to renew the permit of 15 year old stage carriages and also for a direction to the respondents 3, 4 and 5 not to give any transport contract or entrust transport of fuel to the stage carriages used for more than 15 years. 3. Learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Aravind Kumar Babu submitted that Rule 260 A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has been amended by a recent notification and as per the said amendment, a stage carriage older than twenty years from the date of its registration shall not be permitted to be operated as an Ordinary Service or a City Service. Prior to the amendment, Rule 260A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as follows: “260 A - Special provisions applicable to a stage carriage permitted to be operated as certain classes of services – a stage carriage older than five years from the date of its registration shall not be permitted to be operated as fast passenger service and a stage carriage older than three years from the date of its registration shall not be permitted to be operated as Super fast service and a stage carriage older than two years, from the date of its registration shall not be permitted to be operated as a Luxury service, a deluxe service or a super express service.” 4. This court's attention is also drawn to a decision of this court in Rashinlal v. R.T.A., Kozhikode reported in 2004 (1) KLT 1091 , wherein a Honourable Division Bench of this court held that the Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction to impose a condition as to the age of the vehicle while granting the permit for a stage carriage. At paragraphs 5 to 7 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment, this court held as follows: 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, in the decision reported in 2001 (2) KLT 209 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the expression "specified description" appearing in Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had to be understood as taking any model of the vehicle also with reference to its age and that the Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction to impose a condition as to the age of the vehicle while granting the permit for a stage carriage. It has also been held that safety and convenience of the passengers who travel in a stage carriage, apart from the road worthiness of the stage carriage, is certainly a relevant factor that has to weigh with the Regional Transport Authorities while granting a stage carriage permit. It is further held that for the mere reason that it is not specifically prescribed under the Rules it cannot be said that the Regional Transport Authorities acted illegally in imposing such a restriction since under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act it is well within its powers to insist for a vehicle of a specified description. Analysing the issue from the point of public interest, the Division Bench found substance in the contention raised by the Government Pleader in support of the restriction imposed by the Regional Transport Authorities. The Division Bench had no hesitation to hold that the fixation of the model of a stage carriage with reference to its age was a reasonable restriction and to reject the challenge of the petitioners based on Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench had no hesitation to hold that the fixation of the model of a stage carriage with reference to its age was a reasonable restriction and to reject the challenge of the petitioners based on Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The issue before the Division Bench was the validity of the imposition of a model condition by different Regional Transport Authorities to the effect that no permit will be granted, renewed, counter-signed or varied and no request for concurrence will be entertained in respect of stage carriages which are more than 15 years old as reckoned from the date of initial registration. Though the Division Bench upheld the decision of the Regional Transport Authorities not to permit a vehicle which is more than 15 years old to operate as a stage carriage, considering that it was a new restriction introduced by the Regional Transport Authorities, the Division Bench directed that the operators will be granted a period of two years to replace their vehicles and that the period of two years will run from the respective dates of the decision by the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. We do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the Division Bench in the above mentioned decision. The learned Single Judge was right and justified in dismissing the Original Petition relying on the above mentioned decision of the Division Bench. 6. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the period of two years granted in the above mentioned decision of the Division Bench should be counted from the date of completing the age of 15 years. It was specifically stated in the decision of the Division Bench that the period of two years will run from the respective dates of the decision by the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. The said concession was allowed by the Court in the light of the provision contained in Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act that while insisting on a condition that vehicles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications shall be used, the continued use of any vehicle operating on that date shall not be prevented for a period of two years from the date of publication of the approved specifications. It was also clarified by the Court that the above benefit was available only in the case of any vehicle operating as on the date of introduction of the new condition. Therefore, the intention of the court was not to grant a further period of two years in the case of all vehicles after they completed 15 years of age. The intention was to remove the hardships and difficulties which may be faced by the operator of a vehicle operating as a stage carriage on the date of introduction of the restriction regarding the age of vehicle. No such concession or benefit can be claimed in respect of a 15 year old vehicle after the expiry of the period of two years from the date of decision of the Regional Transport Authority imposing the restriction regarding the age of stage carriage vehicles. 7. We are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that further extension of time should be granted to operate the 15 year old vehicle as a stage carriage in view of the hardships and difficulties of the appellants. First of all, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, any further extension of time will be against public interest. Secondly, after considering various representations submitted by the stage carriage operators the Government itself extended the time for replacing the old vehicles by a period of three months as per G.O. (Ms) No. 22/02/Tran. dated 4.9.2002. A further period of three months was granted as per G.O.(Ms) No. 41/02/Tran. dated 18.12.2002 and G.O.(Ms) No. 5/03/Tran. dated 10.2.2003. In fact, such extension was granted by the Government subject to the condition that in order to avail such benefit of extension for the renewal of permit, the stage carriage owners shall execute a bond with the Secretaries of respective Regional Transport Authorities to the effect that old vehicles will be replaced within the time limit and will not request for further extension of time for replacement. According to the details furnished by the Government Pleader, the dates of decision of the Regional Transport Authorities and the dates of expiry of the time allowed as per the above Government orders as are given below. According to the details furnished by the Government Pleader, the dates of decision of the Regional Transport Authorities and the dates of expiry of the time allowed as per the above Government orders as are given below. Name of the RTA Date of the Decision Date of Expiry of Time RTA, Kasaragod 26.2.2001 26.8.2003 RTA, Kannur 30.8.2000 28.2.2003 RTA, Wayanad 9.11.2000 9.5.2003 RTA, Kozhikode 23.10.2000 23.4.2003 RTA, Malappuram 8.1.2001 8.7.2003 RTA, Palakkad 21.11.2000 21.5.2003 RTA, Thrissur 3.10.2000 3.4.2003 RTA, Ernakulam 27.10.2000 27.4.2003 RTA, Idukki 3.8.2000 28.2.2003 RTA, Kottayam 26.7.2001 26.1.2004 RTA, Alappuzha 14.6.2001 14.12.2003 RTA, Pathanamthitta 17.1.2002 17.7.2004 RTA, Kollam 26.4.2000 27.1.2004 RTA, Thiruvananthapuram 19.7.2001 19.1.2004 8. We also do not find any merit in the contention that the fixation of different dates in different districts for the expiry of the period during which the 15 year old vehicles are allowed to operate as stage carriages, is discriminatory. Such difference in dates of expiry of the period is due to the difference in the dates on which the age restriction was introduced by the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. A uniform period of two years and six months from the date of introduction of the age restriction was granted in the case of all vehicles. Hence there is no discrimination involved in the matter. 9. There is also no force in the contention that the impugned restriction is discriminatory since 15 year old vehicles can be operated as contract carriages and school buses. Such carriages form a distinct class and differentiation between stage carriages and contract carriages or school buses cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable or irrational.” 5. In Raghavan v. R.T.O., Kollam reported in 2001 (2) KLT 209 , a Honourable Division Bench of this court has held that the Regional Transport Authority under Section 72(2) is empowered to insist for a vehicle of a specified description, i.e., restricting the age of the vehicle for the grant of permit for a stage carriage. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the materials available on record, we are of the view that the averments made in this writ petition, are baseless and without any proof for the reason that public interest litigation is not maintainable on the basis of newspaper reports. Moreover, the Regional Transport Authority has already issued a circular regarding the maximum age limit for motor vehicles. Moreover, the Regional Transport Authority has already issued a circular regarding the maximum age limit for motor vehicles. Power and jurisdiction exercised have been upheld by this court, even before the filing of the writ petition. Therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. 7. In view of the above discussion, decisions and the subsequent amendments to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 nothing further survives in this writ petition to be considered. Writ petition is dismissed.