ORDER Pandey J. l. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the grant of a single trip stage carriage permit for the Gwalior-Karera-Pichhor Chanderi route which the Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior made in favour of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (respondent 3) on 30 July 1962 and which the State Transport Appellate Authority affirmed on 12 November 1963 by dismissing the petitioner's appeal against it. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be shortly stated. The Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior invited applications for two stage carriage single trip permits for the route. There were several applicants for these permits. While the petitioner made two applications, each duly stamped, for the two permits, the Madhya Bharat Roadways made only one application for the two permits and paid the prescribed fee in the shops of stamps for only one permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior selected the petitioner and the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation as suitable operators and, by the impugned order dated 30 July 1962, granted to each a single trip permit for the route. Being aggrieved by the grant made to the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner appealed to the State Transport Appellate Authority which as already indicated, dismissed the appeal on 12 November 1963. The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation too appealed against the grant in favour of the petitioner, but that appeal also was dismissed by the same order. 3. The petitioner has challenged the grant made in favour of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on the following grounds: (i) The application made by the Madhya Bharat Roadways was not in the prescribed form. (ii) The application was otherwise not valid because only one application was made for both permits and the fee prescribed was paid for only one permit. (iii) The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation had no fight to pursue the application made by the Madhya Bharat Roadway. 4. In regard to the first ground, which was faintly urged before us, we consider it sufficient to say that there is no substance in it. The form ‘P. St. (iii) The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation had no fight to pursue the application made by the Madhya Bharat Roadway. 4. In regard to the first ground, which was faintly urged before us, we consider it sufficient to say that there is no substance in it. The form ‘P. St. S. A.' actually used in this case by the Madhya Bharat Roadways is exactly like the one prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Rules in force in the Madhya Bharat Region, the only difference being that the hearing has reference to the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940. We do not consider that makes any difference in substance. 5. As shown, the Regional Transport Authority had invited applications for two single trip permits for the route. The Madhya Bharat Roadways made only one application for "one return trip by 2 buses i.e., one single trip by each bus as per Notification No. 501/ RTA/62 published in M.P. Gazette dated 9-2-1962, part 3 (i) on page 231" and it is also not disputed that the prescribed fee was paid for only one permit. It is obvious, and is not disputed either, that a separate application had to be made for each permit and a separate fee as prescribed had to be paid there for. In this situation, the transport authorities treated the application made for one of the two single trip permits, more particularly because the prescribed fee had been paid for only one permit. It was open to the transport authorities to allow the Madhya Bharat Roadways to amend its application so as to make it an application for one of the two permits and, notwithstanding the absence of a formal order to that effect, they should be regarded as having treated the application as substantially made for one of the two permits. It is urged that the prescribed fee had to be paid with the application and that, since the fee required for two permits had not been paid, there was no valid application at all. For this view, reliance was placed on Azad Hind Motor Transport Cooperative Society vs. Regional Transport Authority, Indore and others, 1964 JLJ 145 . That case is easily distinguishable on facts. For this view, reliance was placed on Azad Hind Motor Transport Cooperative Society vs. Regional Transport Authority, Indore and others, 1964 JLJ 145 . That case is easily distinguishable on facts. In our opinion, the objection now raised is a technical one and without any substance, because the fee requisite for one of the permits for which the application was treated as valid had actually been paid in the manner required. We are, therefore, unable to accept even this ground. 6. The last ground is that the application made by the Madhya Bharat Roadways could not be pursued by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. We are unable to accept this contention that an application for a permit made by a person cannot be pursued by his successor. We pointed out in Kulsumbi vs The Regional Transport Authority, Indore, and to others, M.P. No. 270 of 1961, decided on the 25th January 1962, that once a person has made an application under an existing enactment, the right to have that application disposed of in accordance with that enactment in a right which has accrued in his favour and can be pursued by his successor. In the instant case, the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, which has been constituted under section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, was formed by the amalgamation of the two State undertakings, namely, the Madhya Bharat Roadways and the Central Provinces Transport Services. The Corporation has succeeded to all the assets and liabilities of the two State undertakings and operates all the permits granted to the two undertakings. In our opinion, the Corporation is a successor of the two State undertakings and was entitled to prosecute the application which in this case was made by the Madhya Bharat Roadways : M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. State Transport Appellate Authority 1964 JLJ SN 243. 7. Since no other point was argued before us, this petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner shall bear its own costs and payout of the security amount those incurred by the respondent 3. The remaining amount of security shall be refunded. Hearing fee Rs 100.