JUDGMENT : As the issue involved in these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C).No. 9 of 2020. 2. The petitioners are all stage carriage operators who are aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondent authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act that, for obtaining a fresh stage carriage permit, they have to offer a vehicle that is not older than 8 years, for operation under the permit. The stand taken by the respondents is stated to be based on the decision taken by the State Transport Authority [STA] at its meeting on 16.01.2019, the minutes pertaining to which are produced as Ext.P3. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 minutes reads as follows: “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 4. As per Section 72(2) the RTA's are empowered to grant permit for the stage carriage of a specified description when it decides to grant a stage carriage permit. As “specified description” has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.5227/2003 dated 04/08/2010 [2010 (4) KLT 597 SC] has held that “the expression 'specified description' is very wide and this would include the fixing of age of the vehicle also. Restricting the age of the vehicle for the grant of permit for a stage carriage is obviously in the public interest because old vehicles can cause accidents and inconvenience and therefore, the authorities under the MV Act 1988 are perfectly justifies in placing such restriction for grant of the permit.” Hence the RTAs are empowered to restrict the age of vehicle for grant of stage carriage permit. As per Section 68(3)(a) the State Transport Authority is empowered to coordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the RTAs of the State. Hence the STA is empowered to fix/restrict the age of the vehicle for grant of stage carriage permit as the intention is only to bring in a consensus regarding the same. 5. The aspects put forward by the R&D Team constituted by the Department were also considered by the STA. The report emphasizes the negative impact on the transporting system, both Government and Private sector, to the general public as they expect more efficient, adequate, modern and safe road transportation system. 5. The aspects put forward by the R&D Team constituted by the Department were also considered by the STA. The report emphasizes the negative impact on the transporting system, both Government and Private sector, to the general public as they expect more efficient, adequate, modern and safe road transportation system. Government vide GO (P) No.43/2018/Tran dated 01.12.2018 enhanced the age limit of Super Fast Services and Fast Passenger Services in the State from five years to seven years. Besides, the enhancement of total life span of stage carriages is under the consideration of Government. Considering the above aspects, STA decided to re fix the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS Stage Carriages as 8 years.” 3. In the case of all the petitioners, the regular permits sought for by them on various routes were sanctioned with the rider that the vehicles offered for operation under the permits would have to be not older than 8 years. Assailing the objectionable condition imposed in the orders sanctioning the permit, as well as the decision of the STA on the basis of which such a condition was imposed, the petitioners in W.P. (C).Nos.27745, 28971 and 30597 of 2019 approached this Court through their respective writ petitions, and obtained interim orders directing a consideration of their applications for issuance of temporary permits on the respective routes, without insisting on the condition as regards age of the vehicles. 4. In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.9, 61 and 460 of 2020, they assailed the condition imposed in the orders sanctioning their permits before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal [STAT] through Revision Petitions filed before the said forum. While the said forum granted them similar interim orders directing the issuance of temporary permits pending disposal of the Revision Petitions, the Revision Petitions were subsequently dismissed by the STAT by upholding the legality of the condition imposed by the STA. They therefore approached this Court challenging the orders of the STAT that dismissed their Revision Petitions, as well as the decision of the STA dated 16.01.2019. They therefore approached this Court challenging the orders of the STAT that dismissed their Revision Petitions, as well as the decision of the STA dated 16.01.2019. While their writ petitions were admitted by this Court, I was not inclined to grant them their prayer for an interim order to direct the Regional Transport Authority concerned to consider their case for grant of a temporary permit for operating their stage carriage vehicles on the respective routes, without insisting on the condition as regards age of the vehicle. I therefore passed the following order on their prayer for the interim relief: “In both these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are the registered owners of stage carriages, impugn Ext.P3 order of the 1st respondent and Ext.P6 common order of the 5th respondent, whereby their applications for regular permit for operating their stage carriage vehicles was granted subject to the condition that the permit could be operated only with stage carriage vehicles which were not older than 8 years. The petitioners impugned the said condition imposed by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) before the 5th respondent, but the said challenge was rejected by the 5th respondent, who found that the condition imposed by the RTA could not be said to be illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory. It is, therefore, that the petitioners are before this Court impugning the common order of the 5th respondent, as also the condition imposed by the RTA while granting the permit sought for by the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Deepak, would vehemently contend that, in other writ petitions preferred before this Court, challenging the order of the State Transport Authority (STA) that directed the incorporation of such a condition in any permit to be granted by the RTA, this Court has, while admitting the said writ petitions, granted interim orders permitting the RTA to consider the applications for temporary permit de hors the restriction directed by the STA with regard to the age of the vehicle. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that while admitting the writ petitions, this Court also grant a similar interim order that would enable the petitioners to apply for a temporary permit for operation of the stage carriage vehicle without any restriction as regards the age of the vehicle. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that while admitting the writ petitions, this Court also grant a similar interim order that would enable the petitioners to apply for a temporary permit for operation of the stage carriage vehicle without any restriction as regards the age of the vehicle. It is further pointed out that the petitioners herein enjoyed the benefit of such an order during the pendency of the revision application before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). 3. On a consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that while the petitioner has made out a case for admission of the writ petitions, an interim order of the nature prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. The impugned orders of the RTA and the STAT reveal that as a matter of policy, the STA had directed that while granting fresh permits to stage carriages for operation as ordinary, city/town, LSOS stage carriages, the use of a vehicle that was not more than 8 years old vehicle would have to be insisted. The said decision appears to have been taken so as to further the objective of gradually phasing out old vehicles that are used as stage carriages in the State. The impugned order of the STAT reveals that the STA had considered the report of the R&D team constituted by the Motor Vehicle Department, which emphasized on the negative impact of the transporting system, both in the Government and private sector, on the general public, in view of it not being efficient, adequate, modern and safe. It was the opinion of the STA that the long term use of vehicles would result in overall corrosion of the body parts of the vehicle and also diminish its engine capacity, which could in turn lead to accidents. It was, therefore, that it was thought fit to impose restrictions as regards the age of the vehicle, while granting new permits. No doubt, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a policy decision of the STA is discriminatory in as much as the condition with regard to the age of vehicle is imposed only in respect of applicants seeking a fresh permit and not from those seeking a renewal of existing permits. No doubt, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a policy decision of the STA is discriminatory in as much as the condition with regard to the age of vehicle is imposed only in respect of applicants seeking a fresh permit and not from those seeking a renewal of existing permits. Prima facie, I am of the view that the imposition of such a condition cannot be said to be discriminatory, especially when viewed in the backdrop of the object sought to be achieved through the imposition of such a condition for the grant of permits. That brings me to the question as to whether, at this stage of the proceedings, this Court should pass an interim order permitting the petitioners to operate vehicles, that do not satisfy the condition as regards age of the vehicle that has been fixed as an eligibility condition for the grant of a regular permit, for use in conjunction with a temporary permit, pending disposal of the writ petitions. In as much as the policy decision of the STA is aimed that ensuring safety of the public, and it is the finding of the report of the R&D team that the age of the vehicle has a direct bearing on the extent of corrosion of the body parts of the vehicle, as also of the engine capacity of the vehicle, which in turn could lead to accidents, I am of the view that permitting the petitioners to operate such vehicles in conjunction with a temporary permit, would defeat the very object that is sought to be pursued by the State Government. Under such circumstances, while admitting the writ petitions and posting the matters for further consideration on 17.01.2020, I decline the prayer for interim relief. Post these writ petitions along with the other connected writ petitions on 17.01.2020.” Thereafter, the writ petitions were all posted for final hearing on 28.01.2020, on which date, I heard Adv. P. Deepak and Adv. Stalin Peter Davis for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, in all these writ petitions. The submissions of Adv. Post these writ petitions along with the other connected writ petitions on 17.01.2020.” Thereafter, the writ petitions were all posted for final hearing on 28.01.2020, on which date, I heard Adv. P. Deepak and Adv. Stalin Peter Davis for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, in all these writ petitions. The submissions of Adv. P. Deepak, who led the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, can be summarised as follows: When the Motor Vehicles Act came into force with effect from 01.07.1988, there was no categorization of Stage Carriage vehicles envisaged for the purposes of the Act and this feature in the Act was maintained even in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, when they were notified with effect from 14.06.1989. When the RTA’s began to classify stage carriage permits, depending on the nature of the service operated by the operators, by invoking their powers under Section 72 of the MV Act, this court in State of Kerala v. Sebastian - [ 1995 (1) KLT 421 ] interdicted the RTA’s from granting stage carriage permits for the higher class of services such as Fast Passenger, Super fast etc. until such time as the State Government framed Rules that laid down parameters for grant of such permits. This led to the State Government amending the Kerala Rules with effect from 01.02.1999, and specifying age criteria for vehicles in relation to all categories of Stage Carriage permits except “ordinary services” and “City or town services” as defined in Rule 2 of the Kerala Rules. The notification amending the Rules was, however, challenged before this Court in O.P.No.9603/1999 in which an interim order was passed staying the operation of the amendments pending disposal of the Original Petition. Faced with the situation where the operation of the amended Rules were stayed by this Court, the RTA’s in the State resorted to insisting on age criteria for vehicles, by stipulating such criteria as conditions for the grant of permit. They did this by invoking their powers under Section 72 (2) of the MV Act and the legality of their actions was upheld by this Court in Raghavan v. RTO – [ 2001 (1) KLT 209 ]. They did this by invoking their powers under Section 72 (2) of the MV Act and the legality of their actions was upheld by this Court in Raghavan v. RTO – [ 2001 (1) KLT 209 ]. O.P.No.9603/1999 was eventually disposed by striking down the definition of “Fleet Owner” in the amended Rules but upholding the provisions of Rule 260A that specified age criteria for vehicles in relation to all categories of Stage Carriage permits except “ordinary services” and “City or town services” as defined in Rule 2 of the Kerala Rules. As a consequence, the 15 year age limit for stage carriages stipulated by the RTA’s earlier came to be applicable only for those carriages as were excluded from the ambit of Rule 260A viz. “ordinary services (including ordinary limited stop service)” and “City or town services”. With effect from 16.07.2013, consequent to the publication of an Approved scheme of Nationalization under Chapter VI of the MV Act, all higher classes of services such as Fast Passenger, Super fast, Luxury, Super Deluxe and Super Express were reserved exclusively for operation by the KSRTC. As a result, Rule 260A applied thereafter only to the services operated by the KSRTC. In 2015, the RTA’s revisited the 15 year age limit prescribed for “ordinary services (including ordinary limited stop service)” and “City or town services” and a revised age limit of 5 years was prescribed for such services. This was challenged by various operators and, by a common judgment dated 15.12.2016 in W.P. (C).No.33980 of 2015, this Court quashed the decisions of the RTA’s and remanded the matter to the STA for consideration since it was felt that the prescription of age limit for such services could not be left to the individual whims and fancies of the various RTA’s. By an order dated 14.06.2017, the STA stipulated an age limit of 8 years for ordinary services, 7 years for city services and 5 years for limited stop ordinary services. This order was, however, set aside by this Court in W.P(C).No.24680/2017 on the ground that the order was a non-speaking one. The STA was directed to take a fresh decision in the matter. The fresh decision is the one dated 16.01.2019 [Ext.P3]. This order was, however, set aside by this Court in W.P(C).No.24680/2017 on the ground that the order was a non-speaking one. The STA was directed to take a fresh decision in the matter. The fresh decision is the one dated 16.01.2019 [Ext.P3]. In the meanwhile, however, the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules were amended with effect from 15.03.2017 to insert a definition of “ordinary limited stop service” apart from the existing definition of “ordinary service”. Thereafter, through a Notification dated 29.01.2019, the draft notification amending Rule 260A, so as to prescribe the age criteria of 20 years for “ordinary service” and 15 years for “ordinary limited stop services”, was approved without modifications. With the said statutory exercise, therefore, the STA’s stood denuded of their power to fix an age criteria for ordinary services and ordinary limited stop services. The decision of the STA dated 16.01.2019 could, therefore, operate only till 29.01.2019 and not thereafter. 5. Per contra, it is the submission of learned Government Pleader that notwithstanding the amendments brought about to Rule 260A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the RTA’s/STA continued to retain their inherent power to prescribe conditions while granting permits for specified kinds of stage carriage services. It is submitted, therefore, that so long as the petitioners do not comply with the age restriction of 8 years in respect of the vehicles operated under their permits, they would forfeit their right to ply vehicles under the permits granted to them. A distinction is sought to be drawn between the prescription of a maximum age under the MV Act for use as a vehicle on the road, and the prescription of an age limit as a condition for the grant of a stage carriage permit, and it is submitted that in prescribing the latter, the RTA’s/STA continue to have the power to prescribe such an age limit. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the statutory provisions. Although at the time of refusing the interim order sought for by some of the petitioners, I was of the view that there was valid reasoning to support the policy decision of the STA to restrict the age limit of stage carriage vehicles that were offered for operation under fresh permits for “ordinary” and “limited stop ordinary” services, I am now inclined to find in favour of the petitioners in their challenge to the decision of the STA. I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, based on their narration of the events that led to the amendment in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, that once Rule 260A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules stood amended, and an age limit came to be fixed for the vehicles to operate under the permits granted for “ordinary” and “limited stop ordinary” services, the RTA’s/STA stood denuded of their power under the respective provisions of the Act to prescribe an age limit that runs counter to the specific provisions of Rule 260A. The RTA’s/STA being creatures of the Act cannot be seen as giving directions that go against the express provisions of the statutory Rules in force. A creature of the statute must adhere to the mandate of that statute. 7. A question may arise as to whether the age limit prescribed under Rule 260A is only the maximum prescribed for a stage carriage vehicle to operate under a specified category of permit, and if so, whether the RTA’s/STA can, while exercising their power to grant permits, prescribe a lesser age requirement for the vehicles to be operated under the permits concerned? On going through the provisions of Rule 260A, I find that it is a special provision applicable to stage carriages that are permitted to be operated as specified classes of services. In other words, the Rule manifests a legislative intention to carve out the power, to impose conditions as regards the age of the vehicle to be operated for a service, from the RTA’s/STA concerned, to the Rule making authority itself. The RTA’s/STA, therefore, do not retain any residual power to prescribe age requirements for the vehicles to be operated under the permits concerned. That prescription will henceforth be through the statutory Rule. If the State Government, in furtherance of any policy decision, seeks to alter the age requirement of such vehicles, it can do so only through an amendment of the Rules, in the manner authorised by the Statute. That prescription will henceforth be through the statutory Rule. If the State Government, in furtherance of any policy decision, seeks to alter the age requirement of such vehicles, it can do so only through an amendment of the Rules, in the manner authorised by the Statute. The upshot of the above discussion is that these writ petitions are allowed, by declaring that the impugned decision of the STA, dated 16.01.2019 ceases to have any legal validity with effect from 29.01.2019, on which date Rule 260A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules stood amended, and a statutory age limit was fixed for the vehicles to operate under the permits granted for “ordinary” and “limited stop ordinary” services. As a consequence, the condition imposed in the permits granted to the petitioners, as regards age of the vehicle offered for stage carriage services, to the extent they are at variance with the provisions of Rule 260A, shall stand quashed. In the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.9, 61 and 460 of 2020, the orders of the STAT impugned therein shall also stand set aside. The respondents shall issue the respective permits to the petitioners on their furnishing details of such vehicles as conform to the age prescription under Rule 260A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.