Short Note : 1. It appears that in 1969 an interstitial agreement was reached between the two States for the operation of this route. On 13.6.1969, notification was issued inviting application for two single-trip permits. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 12 applied for grant of permit. All these applications were heard by the State Transport Authority on 4.8.1970. By order passed on 5.9.1970, one single-trip permit each was granted to respondents 3 and 4, namely, Babulal Agarwal and Ali Ahmed and Sons. There was an appeal to the State Government, which was dismissed by order dated 8.3.1971. Thereafter, the petitioner filed first Misc. Petition No. 357 of 1971 challenging the order of the State Transport Authority and the order of the State Government granting single-trip permits to respondents 3 and 4. The second petition, Misc. Petition No. 475 of 1971, was filed by the petitioner for challenging these very orders of the State Transport Authority and the State Government on one additional ground. The petitioner in this petition alleged that he was granted a return trip permit on 29.1.1960 by the Regional Transport Authority on this very route subject to reciprocal agreement between the two States and that as this grant was not set aside, the petitioner should have been granted the permit and no notification should have been issued inviting applications for the grant of permits after the reciprocal agreement was arrived at between the two States. 2. The petitioner did not take any step to get the permit under the order dated 29.1.1960 at any time in 1960 or thereafter. The petitioner itself applied in pursuance of the notifications issued in 1969 inviting applications. The applications of the respondents were not opposed by the petitioner on the ground that these applications were not maintainable as there was already an order in favour of the petitioner for the same permit. It must, in the circumstances, be held that the grant made by order dated 29.1.1960 was abandoned by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, cannot get benefit of that grant. 3. It appears from these orders that the petitioner laid two permits covering the major portion of the route. One permit in favour of the petitioner was for the route Ambikapur to Ramanujganj and the other permit was for the route Ambikapur to Daltonganj. Out of these permits, the petitioner was not operating one permit. 3. It appears from these orders that the petitioner laid two permits covering the major portion of the route. One permit in favour of the petitioner was for the route Ambikapur to Ramanujganj and the other permit was for the route Ambikapur to Daltonganj. Out of these permits, the petitioner was not operating one permit. This finding is clearly given in the order of the State Government. The petitioner also holds one permit for the route Ambikapur to Bilaspur. There is also a finding in the order of the State Government that this permit is also not being operated by the petitioner. The petitioner in its petition has nowhere stated that these findings are erroneous. The State Transport Authority has further noticed that a sum of Rs. 14,000 was due from the petitioner on account of passenger-tax. It has also been observed that although the petitioner disputed this amount, the petitioner was unable to explain as to what was the nature of the dispute. The petitioner has not disputed in the petition filed in this Court that the passenger-tax is not due against it. As against this, it was found that respondent No. 4, M/s Ali Ahmed and Sons is an old and experienced operator. The operational record of the said respondent showed that no passenger-tax was due against it. There was also no non-maintenance of any route by this respondent. The other respondent Babulal Agarwal was a new entrant. So far as he is concerned, it has been found that he was a share-holder in the firm M/s. Sarguja Raigarh Roadways and was a partner in the firm Ambikapur Motor Service from 1947 to 1954. It has also been observed that Babulal Agarwal is the owner of ten trucks, a petrol pump, a passenger shed and garage with modern facilities with Tata trained mechanic Respondent Babulal Agarwal offered to put an air-cooled latest model bus on the route, From these facts, it is clear that the petitioner was unable to operate one of the permits on the route which it already held. That showed his inability to operate a new permit. Further when the petitioner was holding two permits on the same route, to bring in mere competition, the permits advertised were rightly given to other persons. Both these considerations are relevant considerations in the interest of the general public. That showed his inability to operate a new permit. Further when the petitioner was holding two permits on the same route, to bring in mere competition, the permits advertised were rightly given to other persons. Both these considerations are relevant considerations in the interest of the general public. A reading of the orders passed by the State Transport Authority and the State Government does not show that the merits and demerits of the petitioner and the respondents were not considered by them. The authorities, after considering the various factors, decided to grant the permits to respondents 3 and 4. In our opinion, there is no error of jurisdiction or apparent error of law in the impugned orders. Petitions dismissed.