Bhave, J. 1. The decision in this case shall also govern Miscellaneous petitions Nos. 538 and 554 of 1965. 2. Samrathmal, the petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No. 554 of 1965, had applied for grant of stage carriage permit of single trip on Indore Rampura route on the following timings: Indore Departure 8.30 a.m. Rampura Departure 8:30 a.m. An objection was filed by the Madhya Bharat Roadways Gwalior, on the ground that there was no scope. After necessary enquiry, the Regional Transport Authority, Indore, in its order, dated 11th October 1961, directed as under : "I, therefore; order that stage carriage permit on Rampura Indore via Ratlam, Mandsaur, Pipliya, Manasa for plying two stage carriages of 1961 model be granted to Shri Samrathmal for a period of three years on usual conditions.....the timings shall be fixed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority." It may be noted that though the original application was for Indore Rampura route the order, dated 11th October 1961, refers to Rampura-Indore route. 3. The Regional Transport Authority, instead of issuing one permit for two buses on the Rampura-Indore route, erroneously issued two permits, viz., Permit No. P. St. S. 147/62 for Indore Rampura and P. St. S. 148/62 for Rampura-Indore. The above said permits were valid upto 12-10-1964 and 2-11-1964 respectively, as they were granted on two different dates. 4. Samrathmal applied for renewal of his permits, while the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') filed objections to the renewal and also applied for fresh grant. Both the applications filed by the Corporation mentioned Rampura-Indore route. This appears to have been done because in the order of the Regional Transport Authority the route mentioned was Rampura-Indore. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the application for renewal filed by Samrathmal and granted a fresh permit to the Corporation for a period of three years. The fresh permit was granted for operating two stage carriages, each performing one single daily trip from each end of the route Rampura-Indore. 5. Samrathmal thereupon preferred two separate appeals before the State Transport Appellate Authority, Gwalior, in respect of the two permits. Both the appeals were disposed of by two separate orders passed by the Appellate Authority on 30th November 1965, which are identical in every respect except the number of the appeals. 5. Samrathmal thereupon preferred two separate appeals before the State Transport Appellate Authority, Gwalior, in respect of the two permits. Both the appeals were disposed of by two separate orders passed by the Appellate Authority on 30th November 1965, which are identical in every respect except the number of the appeals. The Appellate Authority was of the view that only one permit could be issued on Indore-Rampura route for two buses in pursuance of the order of the Regional Transport Authority on the issuance of permit No. 147/62 on Indore-Rampura route, the grant was exhausted and the issuance of Permit No. 148/62 was without authority of law. It was also held that as Permit No. 148/62 could not have been validly issued, no application for its renewal could be entertained and no fresh grant could be made in favour of the Corporation, as such a grant would be affected by the Ceiling Order. The result was that the Corporation's applications for fresh grant regarding both the permits were rejected and Samrathmal's appeal with respect to Permit No. 147/62 was allowed, while his appeal with respect to Permit No 148/62 was rejected. The Corporation has filed Miscellaneous Petition. No. 537 of 1965 with respect to Permit No. 148/62 and Miscellaneous Petition No. 538 of 1965 with respect to Permit No. 147/62, while Samrathmal has filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 554 of 196 with respect to Permit No. 148/62. 6. Shri V.S. Dabir, learned counsel for the Corporation, urged that the order of the Regional Transport Authority directed grant of permit on Rampura-Indore route for two buses; that the two permits issued for two separate buses on Indore-Rampura (Permit No. 147/62) and on Rampura-Indore (Permit No. 148/62) should be treated as one permit for Rampura-Indore route; and that, in any case, both the permits should be treated as if they were issued for Rampura-Indore route. In this view of the matter, it was urged that the Appellate Authority's order that the grant of only one permit, namely, that of Indore-Rampura was valid, was not correct. Shri Dabir, therefore, urged that the renewal of Permit No. 147/62 in favour of Samrathmal was improper and the rejection of the Corporation's application for fresh grant in lieu of Permit No. 148/62 was equally erroneous. 7. Shri Dabir, therefore, urged that the renewal of Permit No. 147/62 in favour of Samrathmal was improper and the rejection of the Corporation's application for fresh grant in lieu of Permit No. 148/62 was equally erroneous. 7. Shri M.N. Phadke, learned counsel for Samrathmal on the other hand, urged that the original application of Samrathmal was for Indore-Rampura route; when the order directed issuance of a permit for Rampura-Indore route, that was a clerical mistake and the grant should be assumed to be for Indore-Rampura route only. As the Corporation had applied for grant on the route Rampura-Indore, altogether a new route, the Corporation was not entitled to any fresh grant whatsoever. In the alternative, Shri Phadke urged that the applications filed by Samrathmal were for renewal of the permits, and not for renewal of the grant in consequence of which the permits were issued. He urged that in the matter of renewal, only the permit must be looked into. Admittedly, two permits were issued in the manner described already. Samrathmal could have applied for renewal of those permits and similarly the Corporation could have filed objections and applied for fresh grant for those routes for which the permits were granted. Shri Phadke, therefore, urged that so far as Permit No. 147/62 was concerned, it was for Indore-Rampura route and no dispute could be raised by the Corporation inasmuch as no application for fresh grant on Indore-Rampura route was filed by the Corporation, the Corporation having applied for fresh grant on Rampura-Indore route only. Shri Phadke, in this view of the matter, urged that there is no occasion for interfering with the order of the Appellate Authority so far as Permit No. 147/62 is concerned. As to Permit No. 148/62, Shri Phadke conceded that the matter may be remitted to the State Transport Appellate Authority for consideration on merits. 8. After hearing the parties, we are satisfied that the contentions of Shri Phadke must prevail. 9. In section 2 (20) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, "permit has been defined to mean the document issued by the Commission or a State or Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage or stage carriage or authorising the owner as a private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle. 9. In section 2 (20) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, "permit has been defined to mean the document issued by the Commission or a State or Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage or stage carriage or authorising the owner as a private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle. Sections 46, 47 and 48 provide for the procedure to be followed in applying for the permits and the grant thereof if the authorities entrusted with the function of granting the permits have committed any mistakes, that can be got corrected by resorting to the procedure prescribed under the Act, such as, by preferring an appeal etc. The mistakes can also be got corrected by challenging the orders by way of writ petitions. So long as that is not done, it cannot be said that the permit issued by the authorities is rendered invalid or inoperative only because the permit is not in consonance with the original resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority which decides to grant the permit. From the scheme of the Act, it would, therefore, appear that the resolution which records the decision of the authority to grant the permit is distinct from the actual permit that is granted. The permit, which is actually granted, remains operative so long as it is not got revoked or modified under the proper procedure prescribed under the Act or by resorting to the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter when an application for renewal of the permit is filed, the authorities concerned are called upon to accept the permit as it is and not to embark on the enquiry as to whether the permit was properly issued or not. The renewal of a permit is nothing but the extension of the same permit for a further specified period. While extending the period it may be necessary to follow the same procedure which is prescribed for the initial grant; but that does not mean that any enquiry can be made at that stage as to whether the previous grant was valid or not in this view of the matter, a distinction has to be made between the resolution by which a decision to issue the permit is taken and the actual permit that is issued. At the renewal stage what is relevant is the actual permit that was issued and not the preceding step that resulted in issuance of the permit. In United Motor Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Sreelakhmi Motor Transport Co Ltd. [AIR 1945 Cal. 260 at p. 263] a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed as under: "It is quite clear that the procedure laid down in section 57 must be followed by the transport authority when dealing with applications for permits. If that authority either grants a permit or refuses a permit without following the procedure laid down in section 57, it would be a case of material irregularity and the order for granting or refusing permit, as the case may be, will be liable to be set aside by appellate authority on an appeal being preferred under section 64 of the Act by a person. aggrieved by the refusal, when the permit had been refused or on an appeal preferred by a local authority, or by the police or by a person providing transport facilities who had opposed the grant of the permit, where the permit has be en granted. In our judgment such a permit would not be a void document. It will have to be revoked at the instance of persons mentioned in clause (f) of section 64, by the appellate tribunal, and if not revoked or till revoked will be a valid permit, a permit issued under the Act, and would attract to it the provisions of para 1 of section 58." In V.C.K. Bus Service Ltd. Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore [ AIR 1957 SC 489 ] it has been recognised that a renewal of a permit is continuation of the original permit and consequently when the grant of a permit is set aside by a higher authority, the renewal thereof also stands automatically set aside and does not continue to subsist for the period for which it was renewed. From this decision it follows that the original grant may be set aside by following the procedure prescribed under the Act and in that case the renewal of the permit shall also fall. 10. From the two decisions set out above it is quite clear that at the time of the renewal no collateral attack to its validity can be entertained. 10. From the two decisions set out above it is quite clear that at the time of the renewal no collateral attack to its validity can be entertained. We, therefore, hold that at the renewal stage the authorities are precluded from considering the validity of the permits. They are only called upon to consider applications in relation to the permits actually granted. In as much as the Corporation had not applied for grant of permit on Indore-Rampura route, as is covered by Permit No. 147/62, the decision of the Appellate Authority regarding that permit is upheld, though on different grounds. The decision of the Appellate Authority with respect to Permit No. 148/62 is set aside. The application filed by Samrathmal for renewal of the permit as well as the application filed by the Corporation for fresh grant regarding Permit No. 148/62 will have to be considered on merits by the Appellate Authority. The order of the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 93 of 1965 is quashed and the case is remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision according to law. 11. The result is that Miscellaneous Petition No. 538 of 1965 is dismissed and Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 537 and 534 of 1935 are allowed to the extent already indicated. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. The security amounts deposited by the petitioners in all the three petitions shall be refunded to them.