Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 105 (KER)

Sajeesh Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority

2026-02-05

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

body2026
JUDGMENT : Mohammed Nias C.P., J. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions challenges the decisions made by the State Transport Authority (henceforth referred to as "the STA") or the corresponding Regional Transport Authority (henceforth referred to as "the RTA") regarding the granting or rejection of regular stage carriage permits, subject to the requirement that the vehicle to be produced adhere to BS-VI emission norms under Rule 115 and AIS-052 bus body design standards under Rule 125-C of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter "the CMV Rules"). 2. The common issue arising for consideration in these writ petitions are whether the RTAs are legally competent to impose, at the stage of grant of a regular stage carriage permit, conditions mandating compliance with AIS-052 specifications and BS-VI emission norms, when such conditions virtually operate as an indirect fixation of the age of the vehicle, contrary to the statutory scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘the MV Act’) and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter ‘the KMV Rules’). 2.1. The petitioners submit that in all these cases, applications for regular stage carriage permits were considered and permits were granted subject to the condition that the suitable vehicle offered shall be a Type-II category bus registered for inter-urban/inter-city transport, complying with AIS-052 standards in terms of Rule 125-C of the CMV Rules and also satisfying BS-VI emission norms under Rule 115. According to the petitioners, the imposition of such a condition is wholly illegal and unsustainable, as it runs directly contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Shahabudheen and Others v. State Transport Authority and Others [ 2020 (2) KLT 211 ], which held that once the field relating to the maximum permissible age of stage carriages is occupied by Rule 260A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the transport authorities have no jurisdiction to impose additional or indirect conditions at the permit stage which, in effect, fix the age of the vehicle or restrict the choice of an otherwise eligible vehicle beyond the statutory prescription. 2.2. It is contended that Rule 125-C and the AIS-052 specifications merely prescribe standards relating to bus body design and approval, and the phased implementation of AIS-052 commenced from 01.10.2014, with different parameters becoming applicable from 01.01.2017 and 01.01.2018. 2.2. It is contended that Rule 125-C and the AIS-052 specifications merely prescribe standards relating to bus body design and approval, and the phased implementation of AIS-052 commenced from 01.10.2014, with different parameters becoming applicable from 01.01.2017 and 01.01.2018. In Kerala, the body code came into effect only from 01.10.2017, from which date registration of a new stage carriage became possible only on compliance with the body code. Consequent to the introduction of the body code, seating capacity norms were altered, and the taxation structure was modified by adopting floor area instead of seating capacity. Subsequently, bus bodies were classified as Type-I for city services and Type-II for mofussil services. The registering authorities are presently registering new vehicles in accordance with these specifications. 2.3. With regard to BS-VI emission norms, it is pointed out that Rule 115 of the CMV Rules governs emission standards, and BS-VI norms became applicable only from 16.09.2016. Prior to that, vehicles complying with earlier emission standards were statutorily permitted to operate. The petitioners contend that by insisting upon AIS-052 and BS-VI compliance as a condition for the grant of a fresh permit, the RTAs have effectively introduced an indirect age restriction, limiting eligibility to vehicles not older than about eight years, even though no such restriction exists in law. This, according to the petitioners, amounts to fixing the age of the vehicle without any authority or jurisdiction and defeats the statutory framework. 2.4. It is further submitted that the STA considered the question of implementation of AIS-052 and BS-VI norms for the grant of permits only in its meeting held on 08.08.2025, and resolved to implement the same prospectively with effect from 01.09.2025, which decision was communicated to the transport authorities on 08.09.2025. Thereafter, the RTA considered the issue in a special meeting held on 10.09.2025. In that view of the matter, the petitioners contend that the conditions imposed by the RTAs in June 2025 were wholly without authority of law and clearly before any decision of the STA rendering the impugned conditions patently illegal and arbitrary. 2.5. The petitioners assert that the power to impose conditions while granting permits under Section 72 (2) of the MV Act cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the statutory rules. 2.5. The petitioners assert that the power to impose conditions while granting permits under Section 72 (2) of the MV Act cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the statutory rules. Placing reliance on Shahabudheen (supra), it is contended that once Rule 260A of the KMV Rules was amended fixing a statutory age limit for vehicles operating under “ordinary” and “limited stop ordinary” services, any condition imposed by the transport authorities relating to the age or specification of the vehicle, in excess of or inconsistent with Rule 260A, ceases to have legal validity and is liable to be quashed. The STA and the RTAs, being creatures of statute, have no power to impose conditions in derogation of the statutory rules. 2.6. It is further submitted that a stage carriage is a public service vehicle within the meaning of Sections 2 (40) (defines stage carriage) and 2(35) (public service vehicle) of the MV Act and is a transport vehicle under Section 2 (47). Section 56 of the MV Act mandates a valid certificate of fitness for all transport vehicles. Rule 62 of the CMV Rules prescribes the validity of the certificate of fitness, which certifies compliance with all statutory requirements. Therefore, the operation of a stage carriage on a permitted route is statutorily ensured through the fitness certification, and no additional vehicle-related conditions can be imposed at the permit stage. 2.7. The petitioners also rely on the object and policy of the MV Act, 1988, which replaced the 1939 Act with a liberalised regime intended to simplify procedures and ensure non-restrictive grant of permits, in order to avoid isolation of regions and to promote balanced transport development. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India [ AIR 1992 SC 443 ], wherein the policy of liberalisation underlying the 1988 Act was upheld. The petitioners contend that the impugned actions defeat this statutory policy and are therefore unsustainable. 2.8. It is also pointed out that most of the State is covered by notified schemes, severely restricting the scope for grant of fresh permits, and new permits are already confined largely to rural routes. In such circumstances, the imposition of further conditions through executive action is alleged to be intended to block new entrants and protect existing operators, notwithstanding repeated judicial pronouncements to the contrary. 2.9. In such circumstances, the imposition of further conditions through executive action is alleged to be intended to block new entrants and protect existing operators, notwithstanding repeated judicial pronouncements to the contrary. 2.9. The petitioners submit that earlier attempts by transport authorities to fix vehicle age limits were consistently interfered with by this Court, culminating in the amendment of Rule 260A. The subsequent modification of Rule 260A in 2024, extending the permissible age of vehicles, further demonstrates that the field is fully occupied by statutory rules. The selective application of the impugned conditions only to fresh permits, while excluding renewals, replacements, and transfers, is alleged to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 2.10. On these grounds, the petitioners contend that the conditions imposed in the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, contrary to the statutory scheme and binding precedents, and liable to be set aside. 3. Table showing the details of the writ petitions: 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent in W.P.(C) No. 36460 of 2025, the State Transport Authority contends that the petitioner had submitted an application before the RTA, Palakkad, seeking the grant of a fresh stage carriage permit. It is stated that the petitioner had not furnished all particulars required under Section 70 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the prescribed form. It is, however, admitted that there is no statutory obligation on an applicant to produce a ready vehicle or its particulars at the time of submission of the permit application. 4.1. It is submitted that at the time of consideration of the application, the petitioner had not offered any vehicle nor furnished details of any vehicle proposed to be operated. The RTA, therefore, granted the permit subject to conditions, including compliance with AIS- 052 bus body standards and statutory requirements under the Act. It is contended that only long after the grant of the permit, the petitioner acquired ownership of a 2006 model vehicle, having a seating capacity of only 23, allegedly procured from a scrap market, and sought issuance of a permit in respect of the said vehicle. 4.2. According to the respondents, the said vehicle, being nearly 20 years old, was unfit for operation as a stage carriage and did not possess sufficient remaining service life to operate for the full tenure of a regular permit. 4.2. According to the respondents, the said vehicle, being nearly 20 years old, was unfit for operation as a stage carriage and did not possess sufficient remaining service life to operate for the full tenure of a regular permit. It is further contended that the vehicle did not fall within the Type-II category prescribed under AIS-052 standards, as required for inter-urban and inter-city stage carriage operations in terms of Rule 125-C of the CMV Rules. 4.3. The respondents submit that under Section 72 (2) of the MV Act, the RTA is empowered to grant a stage carriage permit for a vehicle of a specified description. Reliance is placed on clauses (X) and (XI) of Section 72 (2), which authorise the authority to impose conditions requiring the use of vehicles of a specified type fitted with bodies conforming to approved specifications, and to ensure that prescribed standards of safety, comfort, and cleanliness are maintained. It is contended that the expression “specified description” occurring in Section 72 (2) is of wide amplitude and is sufficient to encompass compliance with AIS standards. 4.4. It is further contended that AIS-052 bus body standards and BS- VI emission norms are statutory requirements governing registration and operation of buses, and both the registering authority and the transport authorities are bound to give effect to these provisions while discharging their statutory functions. The provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Act relating to registration, construction, equipment, and maintenance of motor vehicles and those contained in Chapter V relating to permits are not mutually exclusive, but are required to be harmoniously construed and applied while regulating stage carriage operations. 4.5. The respondents place reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 454 of 2023, wherein the implementation of AIS-052 standards was upheld in the interest of passenger safety and comfort. It is pointed out that the Division Bench recognised that bus body design and construction depend upon the nature and purpose of use of the vehicle, and that for operation on inter-urban and inter-city routes as stage carriages, Type-II vehicles are prescribed under AIS-052. It is contended that the said standards have statutory force by virtue of Rule 125-C of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 , which mandates that the construction of bus bodies shall conform to the Bus Body Code as specified therein. It is contended that the said standards have statutory force by virtue of Rule 125-C of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 , which mandates that the construction of bus bodies shall conform to the Bus Body Code as specified therein. It is further contended that the Regional Transport Authority is well within its jurisdiction to assess the suitability of a vehicle for the grant of a permit, not only with reference to Sections 70 , 71, 72, and 80 of the Act, but also with regard to compliance with statutory provisions governing the construction, equipment, and maintenance of motor vehicles. 4.6. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju (Civil Appeal Nos. 1453- 1454 of 2022), wherein the Apex Court approved the principle laid down in Sheelchand v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1963 SCC OnLine MP 44), holding that the power to issue permits with conditions is intended not for the benefit of the permit holder, but for safeguarding the interests of the travelling public. 4.7. It is contended that the STA and the RTA are duty-bound to give effect to the objectives of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , which, as reflected in its Statement of Objects and Reasons, include not only public safety, convenience, health, and orderly regulation of passenger transport, but also the encouragement of adoption of higher technology in the automotive sector, improvement of road transport management, and enhancement of safety and environmental standards in keeping with modern requirements. In furtherance of these statutory objectives, the STA, in its meeting held on 08.08.2025, resolved to implement certain measures with effect from 01.09.2025 for the grant of fresh stage carriage permits, including mandatory compliance with the AIS-052 bus body code, mandatory adherence to BS-VI exhaust emission standards, and issuance of fresh permits only to new buses. 4.8. The respondents further contend that these decisions were necessitated by repeated representations pointing out the misuse of vehicles nearing the maximum permissible age for obtaining fresh permits, followed by the sale of such vehicles along with the permits, resulting in the trafficking of permits. It is asserted that the STA, being the apex statutory authority, is obligated to curb such practices in the interest of public safety, environmental protection, and regulatory discipline. 4.9. It is asserted that the STA, being the apex statutory authority, is obligated to curb such practices in the interest of public safety, environmental protection, and regulatory discipline. 4.9. It is further submitted that compliance with AIS-052 standards, which prescribe minimum safety and structural norms for bus body construction, has been mandated pursuant to directions dated 19.07.2017 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, which came into effect from 1.10.2017, and that the said standards significantly enhance passenger safety, accessibility, and quality of public transport. 4.10. The respondents also submit that BS-VI emission norms, which have been in force across the country from 01.04.2020, represent the most stringent emission control regime introduced to reduce vehicular pollution. Restricting the grant of fresh stage carriage permits to BS-VI compliant vehicles is stated to be in conformity with national policy, statutory rules, and public health considerations. 4.11. On the aforesaid grounds, the respondents contend that the writ petitions are devoid of merit, that the impugned decisions are within the statutory competence of the transport authorities, and that no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard Sri. K.V. Gopinathan Nair, Sri.O.D. Sivadas, Sri.M.Jithesh Menon, Sri.Saju J. Vallyara and Sri. Asif K.H., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, and Smt. Surya Binoy, the learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. 6. Learned Senior Government Pleader Smt. Surya Binoy argues that Section 66 of the MV Act, 1988, under Chapter V requires a permit before any motor vehicle is used as a transport vehicle in any public place, while Section 71 lays down the procedure to be followed by the RTA in considering an application for a stage carriage permit. Section 71 (1) reads: “the RTA shall, while considering an application for stage carriage permit, have regard to the objects of the Act.” The statement of objects and reasons of the MV Act shows that one among its objects was to encourage the need for higher technology in automotive sector, which was looked into by the working group that was formed to review the provisions of the MV Act. To the contention of the petitioner that in view of Rule 260A of the KMV Rules, prescribing the maximum age permissible for stage carriages, the impugned decisions cannot be sustained, it is argued that Section 72 (2) empowers the RTA to grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and that the requirement that the stage carriages should conform to the standards embodied in AIS-052 norms is to insist on a specified description. That bodies of stage carriages that are built in accordance with pre-AIS-052 norms might not qualify is only an incidental effect of an otherwise valid stipulation. The intention behind the impugned decision was not to insist on the vehicles of any certain age. 6.1. It is further submitted that Rule 125C of the CMV Rules introduces the bus-body code in the statute, that the construction of buses shall be in accordance with AIS-052 Norms as they are amended from time to time. The contention that Rule 125C and the AIS-052 norms only relate to the construction of carriages ignores the fact that these norms categorise vehicles based on their intended usage. This was taken note of by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 21.03.2023 in WA No. 438/2024. As the type and use of transport vehicles are intrinsically interlinked, it becomes a relevant consideration to the question of the grant of a permit authorising their use as a stage carriage. 6.2. It is also submitted that the contention that existing operators, while applying for renewal or replacement, are not required to produce the AIS-052 to a compliant vehicle is untenable. It is well settled that the transport authorities can introduce measures in the public interest in an incremental manner or in phases. Rule 174(2)(c) of the KMV Rules empowers rejection of an application for replacement on the ground that the new vehicle proposed is older than the one sought to be replaced. 6.3. The contentions that any vehicle that has obtained a Fitness Certificate in tune with Section 59 of the MV Act and Rule 62 of CMV Rules shall necessarily be granted a permit by the RTA were repelled by the Division Bench judgment in Raghavan v. RTO, Kollam ( 2001 KHC 387 ). This Court followed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Bharathkumar v. KSTAT (AIR 1995 Karnataka 264) to repel an identical contention. This Court followed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Bharathkumar v. KSTAT (AIR 1995 Karnataka 264) to repel an identical contention. It is submitted that the contention that the restrictions would be unreasonable in view of the liberalised regime introduced by the MV Act was also rejected in the said judgment on the anvil of overall public interest. 6.4. It is also submitted that this decision also upheld the power of different RTAs to insist on vehicles of a certain age as a condition for the grant of a permit/attached to the existing permits. While this may not be permissible in view of Rule 260A, this decision is an authority for the proposition that the RTA has powers independent of those of the STA to insist on a specified description. This power is independent of any directions issued by the State Government as well [ Kasargode District Bus Owners Association v. RTA Kasargode and Ors ( 2015 (1) KHC 156 )]. While STA has the powers to issue binding directions in terms of Section 68(1) and (3), under Section 68(2), it has the power to decide the question of permit only in the circumstances specified therein. Therefore, the powers of the RTA and STA, while in a hierarchical setup, are independent in their respective spheres [ State of Rajasthan v. Noor Mohammad (1972 KHC 484)]. 7. The main contention put forth by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the mandatory compliance with AIS-052 standards and BS-VI emission norms at the stage of grant of a regular permit amounts to indirect age fixation of the vehicle, which is violative of Rule 260A of the KMV Rules and against the decision laid down by this Court in Shahabudheen (supra). This contention of the petitioners is not legally permissible. It is important to note that Rule 260A of the KMV Rules prescribes the maximum permissible age of a vehicle that can be operated as stage carriages under different categories of service. This rule thus operates in a distinct field and does not deal with the specification, description, construction, safety or emission standards of vehicles. Thus, the fact that compliance with certain statutory standards may incidentally render older vehicles unfit does not ipso facto amount to the fixation of an age limit in violation of rule 260A. 8. This rule thus operates in a distinct field and does not deal with the specification, description, construction, safety or emission standards of vehicles. Thus, the fact that compliance with certain statutory standards may incidentally render older vehicles unfit does not ipso facto amount to the fixation of an age limit in violation of rule 260A. 8. Section 72 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 gives the RTA the authority to impose conditions when granting a stage carriage permit. The authority is expressly authorised by clauses (X) and (XI) to mandate that vehicles utilised under the permit be of a particular type, equipped with bodies that meet approved specifications, and adhere to specified standards of cleanliness, comfort, and safety. The phrase "specified description" in Section 72 (2) has a broad meaning and cannot be interpreted to exclude the CMV Rules regarding construction and safety requirements. 9. At this juncture, it is apposite to notice the relevant provision of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules: “125-C. Body building and approval.— (1) On a date to be notified, the testing and approval for body building of buses shall be accordance with AIS:052:2001 as amended from time to time for vehicles mentioned therein, till the corresponding BIS specifications are notified under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 (63 of 1986). (2) The testing and approval for the body building of school buses shall be iii accordance with AIS:063:2005 as amended from time to time for vehicles mentioned therein, till the corresponding BIS specifications are notified under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 (63 of.1986).” 10. Rule 125-C of the CMV Rules statutorily incorporates the AIS-052 Code of Practice for bus body design and approval. The said provision introduced in the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2013 and brought into force with effect from 01.10.2014, does not merely regulate construction in the abstract, but classifies buses based on their intended use, including city, inter-urban, and inter-city operations. The Division Bench of this Court, in W.A. No. 454 of 2023, has specifically recognised that the type of bus body is intrinsically linked to the intended use/nature of service for which the vehicle is deployed and that insisting upon a Type-II bus for inter-urban or inter-city stage carriage operations is directly traceable to Rule 125-C. 11. The Division Bench of this Court, in W.A. No. 454 of 2023, has specifically recognised that the type of bus body is intrinsically linked to the intended use/nature of service for which the vehicle is deployed and that insisting upon a Type-II bus for inter-urban or inter-city stage carriage operations is directly traceable to Rule 125-C. 11. The argument that AIS-052 standards can be enforced only at the stage of registration and not at the stage of grant of permit ignores the statutory scheme of the Act. Chapters IV and V of the Motor Vehicles Act are not mutually exclusive. While Chapter IV deals with registration, construction, equipment, and maintenance of motor vehicles, Chapter V regulates their use through permits. Both chapters are intended to operate harmoniously to achieve the objects of the Act, namely, public safety, convenience, and orderly regulation of transport. The RTA, while granting a permit authorising use of a vehicle as a stage carriage, is entitled to ensure that the vehicle proposed is suitable for such use in terms of statutory standards. 12. The petitioners’ reliance onShahabudheen(supra) is misplaced. In that case, this Court was concerned with an executive decision fixing an age limit for vehicles operating under stage carriage permits, in the absence of statutory backing and in direct conflict with Rule 260A as amended. The present cases do not involve fixation of an age limit as such, but insistence on compliance with safety, construction, and emission norms that are statutorily prescribed under the CMV Rules. The incidental exclusion of certain older vehicles, which do not meet these standards, cannot be equated with an impermissible age restriction. 13. Equally untenable is the contention that a valid certificate of fitness under Section 56 of the Act and Rule 62 of the CMV Rules confers an indefeasible right to obtain or implement a stage carriage permit. A certificate of fitness only certifies that the vehicle complies with the minimum statutory requirements to be used as a transport vehicle. It does not foreclose the authority of the RTA to assess whether the vehicle is suitable for a particular type of service under a stage carriage permit. This position has been consistently affirmed by judicial precedents, includingRaghavan(supra), followingBharathkumar(supra). 14. It does not foreclose the authority of the RTA to assess whether the vehicle is suitable for a particular type of service under a stage carriage permit. This position has been consistently affirmed by judicial precedents, includingRaghavan(supra), followingBharathkumar(supra). 14. The contention founded on the liberalised policy underlying the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg (supra) also does not advance the petitioners’ case. Liberalisation of permits does not imply dilution of safety, environmental, or construction standards. The policy of non-restrictive grant of permits operates subject to compliance with statutory requirements intended to protect public safety, health, and environmental interests. 15. The argument that the impugned conditions were imposed prior to the decision of the STA dated 08.08.2025 and are therefore without authority is also unsustainable. The powers of the RTA under Section 72 (2) are statutory and independent of policy directions issued by the STA under Section 68. While the STA may issue binding policy directions, the absence of such directions does not denude the RTA of its statutory power to insist on compliance with existing rules and standards. The hierarchical structure under the Act does not render the RTA a mere implementing agency devoid of independent statutory discretion within its sphere. 16. The plea of discrimination on the ground that similar conditions are not insisted upon in cases of renewal, replacement, or transfer of permits also cannot be accepted. It is well settled that regulatory measures may be introduced incrementally or in phases, particularly when public safety and environmental concerns are involved. The statute itself recognises differential treatment in various contexts, and such phased implementation cannot, by itself, be characterised as arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 17. The regulatory insistence on compliance with AIS-052 bus body standards and BS-VI emission norms is also squarely traceable to the legislative intent underlying the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the 1988 legislation was enacted to replace the 1939 Act in order to address changes in road transport technology, evolving patterns of passenger movement, improved techniques in motor vehicle management, and the growing need for higher standards of road safety and pollution control. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the 1988 legislation was enacted to replace the 1939 Act in order to address changes in road transport technology, evolving patterns of passenger movement, improved techniques in motor vehicle management, and the growing need for higher standards of road safety and pollution control. One of the express objectives of the Act is the encouragement of adoption of higher technology in the automotive sector, coupled with concern for road safety standards and environmental protection. Rule 125-C of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, statutorily incorporating the AIS-052 Bus Body Code, is a direct manifestation of this legislative policy and cannot be viewed as an isolated or purely administrative stipulation. 18. The measures under challenge are admittedly aimed at public interest, and when pitted against public interest, the right, if any, accorded to individual permit holders must give way. Conditions attached to permits to ensure that vehicles used for public transport conform to current statutory standards are therefore reasonable and cannot be set aside merely because they place additional obligations on permit holders. Viewed thus, the impugned measures are liable to be upheld in the public interest. 19. The respondents have also placed an argument that the impugned measures were prompted by representations highlighting the misuse of vehicles nearing the maximum permissible age to secure fresh permits, followed by transfer or sale of such permits, leading to permit trafficking. Preventing such practices squarely falls within the regulatory mandate of the STA and the RTAs and cannot be said to be an extraneous or irrelevant consideration. 20. The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju (supra), approving the principle in Sheelchand v. STAT (supra), that conditions attached to stage carriage permits are intended for the benefit of the travelling public and not for the permit holder, reinforces the statutory duty of the authorities to prioritise public safety and convenience over private commercial interests. 21. 21. Viewed in the above legal and statutory backdrop, this Court finds that the impugned conditions mandating compliance with AIS-052 bus body standards and BS-VI emission norms are traceable to the powers conferred under Section 72 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rules 125-C and 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and are intended to ensure passenger safety, environmental protection, and suitability of vehicles for the nature of service authorised under the permit. The contention that such conditions are without jurisdiction or contrary to the statutory scheme is therefore rejected. 22. An interim order was issued by this Court on 20.11.2025 clarifying that, in cases where regular stage carriage permits had been granted prior to 01.09.2025, the issuance or implementation of such permits shall be considered without placing reliance on the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 08.08.2025, and that the said decision, including the requirement of compliance with AIS-052 bus body standards and BS-VI emission norms, shall apply only to the grant of permits made on or after 01.09.2025, subject to final adjudication in these writ petitions. 23. Even as I uphold the impugned decision, to ensure uniformity and to avoid different standards being enforced by different Regional Transport Authorities, the State Transport Authority is directed to take a uniform stand and issue appropriate directions to all RTAs, at the earliest. However, in cases where regular stage carriage permits were granted prior to 01.09.2025, the legal position as it stood prior to 01.09.2025 shall be followed, and consequential action shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the above exercise, the orders impugned in the writ petitions are quashed insofar as it pertains to the compliance with AIS-052 bus body design standards and BS-VI emission norms. In W.P(C) Nos. 43308/2025, 39009/2025, 24048/2025 and 24059/2025, the applications preferred for regular permit were rejected for non- production of the vehicle meeting the AIS-052 bus body design standards and BS-VI emission norms. At that stage, no rejection could have been made, insisting on the production of the vehicle as law laid down by this Court in Alavikutty v. RTA ( 2005 (1) KLJ 205 ) . At that stage, no rejection could have been made, insisting on the production of the vehicle as law laid down by this Court in Alavikutty v. RTA ( 2005 (1) KLJ 205 ) . Accordingly, the impugned orders in these cases are quashed with a direction to the competent authority to reconsider the applications, in the light of the law existing before 01.09.2025. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.