Short Note : Under a reciprocal transport agreement entered into between the State of M.P. and the State of Bihar, one single trip was to be allotted to the nominee of the State of M.P.. Accordingly, the State Transport Authority invited applications for grant of one single trip permit on the route. By an order dated September 5, 1970 the State Transport Authority granted the permit to respondent No.3 and the applications of all other respondents were rejected. The petitioner as also some of the respondents preferred appeals against the order of the State Transport Authority before the State Government. The petitioner, the Janta Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. and M/s. Ali Ahmed and Sons filed separate writ petitions. The writ petition filed by M/s. Ali Ahmed and sons respondent No. 1 being M.P. No. 753 of 1971 was dismissed in limine on January 17, 1972. Held : The learned counsel for respondent No.3 raised the preliminary objection as to the tenability of the petition. He contended that the order in M.P. No. 753 of 1971 Ali Ahmed and Sons v. Minister of State, Home and Transport and others, dated 17-1-1972 decided by the High Court completely disposed of the case and the order operated as res judicata to, bar fresh petitions. The earlier decision being with respect to the same route and between M/s. Ali Ahmed and Sons and the petitioner and other respondents, decided finally the rights in the petition. The observation of the Court that, "the order of the State Transport Authority was correct" has to be read in the context of rights of the petitioner and not in general. The petition having been dismissed in motion, the respondents were not noticed, therefore, that order would not operate as res judicata against them. 2. The other preliminary objection is to the effect that the period for the original permit having run out, the petitioner would have no subsisting interest in the matter and unless the grant of renewed permits was challenged, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. It is settled that under the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder, a renewal of a permit is a continuation of the permit previously granted. The character of the renewed permit is not altered. It was not necessary to challenge the subsequent permits to get adequate relief. It is settled that under the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder, a renewal of a permit is a continuation of the permit previously granted. The character of the renewed permit is not altered. It was not necessary to challenge the subsequent permits to get adequate relief. The respondent No.3, Shamim Motor Service, is holding a permit that was renewed from time to time and if the original grant of the permit was declared illegal, the subsequent renewals would also fall through. The petitioner, therefore, held a subsisting interest in the original grant of permit and on it depended the subsequent grants. V.C.K. Bus Service Ltd. v. The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, AIR 1957 SC 489 , relied on. 3. The next objection raised is that at the time of subsequent renewal, the Regional Transport Authority had considered the very objections that are being now raised in this writ petition. The orders of Regional Transport Authority and the State Government have not been challenged and they have become final. It would be anomalous, it was contended, to try to over-reach the orders by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without calling such record and without challenging the subsequent grants. If the legal position is that the renewals subsist on the validity of the original grant, there is no question of over-reaching the orders nor could it be contended that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the earlier grant because he had participated in the proceedings when renewals were considered. Petition dismissed.